1921-05-09

Hon. E. K. SPINNEY (Yarmouth and Clare):: I beg to present the second report of the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918. I move that the report be concurred in.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: In the
absence of notice, this motion requires unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: May I ask my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance if the conference between representatives of insurance com-
|Mr. Pedlow.]
panies and the superintendent of insurance has taken place, and whether my hon. friend will proceed with his resolution some day this month?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: The conference my hon. friend refers to has taken place. There was a long meeting of the various interests, and I think that if the interests desire to be fair,-the differences can be largely composed, and the Bill, I hope, introduced as soon as we are finished with the Budget.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. DENIS


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: I rise to a question of privilege. Speaking in Committee of Supply, on the Estimates of Immigration, on April 26 last, I said that I was in favour of admitting into Canada the immigrants of Europe, the subjects of former enemy nations included, provided these immigrants be morally and physically fit, and of the desirable class that we want in this country. Incidentally, I also made reference to the question of unemployment.
Commenting upon my remarks, some newspapers in the province of Quebec said that I had expressed the view that I would not be adverse to the idea of bringing into this country immigrants who- would eventually take the jobs of our working men. I wish emphatically to protest, Sir, against any such interpretation being given to my remarks. By no means do I want foreigners to come to this country to the detriment of our honest working classes. What I said, and what I still maintain, is that this country is wide enough and has resources enough to allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come here without any detriment to any class of the population, but, on the contrary, to the mutual benefit of all classes.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 142 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lily Appleton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Hirshenbain.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 144 (from the Senate), for the relief of Percy Christopher Paul.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 145 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Graham.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	Is the Roy Building at Halifax rented by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment? If so, for what period, what rental is paid, and for what purpose?
2.	(a) How many doctors, nurses and employees are engaged at Halifax by the said department and (b) how many patients were treated from March 1, 1920, to March 1, 1921, and (c) what is the average daily cost per patient?
3.	What is the total Government expenditure on account of Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for the above period?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No. The Roy building at Halifax was held under lease by the Halifax district office of the Board of Pension Commissioners prior to the amalgamation of that office with the Unit Office of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; immediately the amalgamation was effected, the lease of the building was terminated.
2.	(a) The department maintains at Halifax, Camp Hill Hospital and Clinic. The medical staff consists of: 7 full-time physicians; 4 part-time physicians; 22 nurses; 88 other employees., (b) During the period from March 1, 1920, to March 1, 1921, 1,331 in-patients were treated at Camp Hill Hospital and 3,728 clinical treatments were given to out-patients, (c) The average daily cost per patient was $3.42.
3.	The total expenditure by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for the period March 1, 1920, to March 1, 1921, was $38,455,098.01.


CIVIL SERVICE BONUS
Mr. MCDONALD:: 1.	What was the total amount (a) voted, and (b) paid out, for bonus during the past fiscal year?
2.	Have any representations been received from Civil Service organizations on the subject of bonus?
3.	Have these been considered by the Government and have the said organizations been given opportunity to support their views?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	(a)	1920-21,	$12,500,000;	(b) as
shown by books of Finance Department to April 21, 1921, $9,843,697.07.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CIVIL SERVICE-PREVAILING RATES
Mr. McDONALD:: 1.	Have any representations been received from any Civil Service organization re men in the service classed as paid prevailing rates?
2.	If so, have these representations received consideration and by whom?
3.	What recommendations have been made and what, action is being or will be taken in this matter?
4.	What opportunity has been given this class of men to present their case, either to the Government or to the Civil Service Commission?
5.	W^ere the prevailing rate men of all departments represented at any conference which may have been held? If not, why?
6.	Has the Civil Service Commission any data as to prevailing rates of various classes of labour in the several parts of Canada?
7.	If so, where was the data obtained?
8.	Have the various departments interested been advised by the commission that prevailing rates must be paid and that data is available?
9.	Are permanent men classed as coming under prevailing rates regarded as Civil Servants?
l'O. If so, are they entitled to holiday and sick leave?
11. If not, why, and what body made the ruling excluding them from these privileges?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, Civil Service Commission.
3.	The matter is under consideration at the present time.
4.	The Dominion Public Works Federation appeared before the Board of Hearing of the Civil Service Commission on December 22. The Board made certain recommendations which were concurred in by the Civil Service Commission, that salary ranges should be substituted for prevailing rates and that this principle be applied generally where practicable.
5.	(a) No. (b) The commission was not asked by any other body of men classified at prevailing rates for a conference and had any other body done so their request for a conference would have been complied with.
6.	Yes.
7.	Department of Labour.
8.	Departments have been advised that the commission has this information and that it is available on request.
9.	Yes.	[DOT]
10.	No.
11.	Prevailing rates were granted at the request of those concerned who believed it was to their advantage and would give them better terms. Consequently all the usual conditions governing ithe application of prevailing rates outside the Public Service obtain, and no outside employers paying prevailing rates pay for lost time either holidays or sick leave.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAiR (Guysborough) :
1.	Are any of the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine operating in conjunction with the Cunard line or any other steamship company? If so, with what companies?
2.	If any of the said vessels are so operated, who pays the wages, coal and insurance?
[Stage Direction]
3.	What are the names of the vessels, if any, that received a fixed rate per month or other period for their services, and how much does each vessel receive?
4.	Who purchases the supplies for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
5.	Are pulblic tenders called for?
6.	What officer is responsible for the purchase of coal for the said Canadian Government Merchant Marine at Halifax, Nova Scotia?
7.	How many office employees of every description are in the employ of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
8.	Where is the head office, and where are the Branch offices, if any, located?
9.	What was the total expense of every description connected with the office staff and overhead charges of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the year 19'20 ?
1 O'. Who has the appointing of these officers and employees?
Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The information asked for is information as to operating details under the Canadian National Railway Board, and is not in possession of the Government.
The question as to the desirability in the public interest of securing such and like information, and making same available on motion or on question in Parliament, is being considered by a special com-mitee of Parliament.


SERGEANT T. ASHLEY, C.M.S.C.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Was Sergeant T. Ashley, C.M.S.C., discharged from the staff of Militia Headquarters, Ottawa, on March 31, 1921?
2.	If so, what reason was given for this action?
3.	(a) Is the said Sergeant Ashley a returned soldier, and (b) was he trained by the Vocational Service Branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for the position which he formerly held?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Demobilization of all C.E.F. personnel except those who were required after March 31, 1921, for certain special work.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) It is understood he was given a vocational course in stenography and typewriting by the Vocational Service Branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, but it is not known whether he took this course with a view to obtaining employment in the Department of Militia and Defence.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- SASKATOON
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	How many switch engine hours have been absorbed at Saskatoon during the month of April, 1921?
2.	How many tons of freight were handled during the same month at the said place?

3.	How many cars were handled at the said place for the same period?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1, 2, 3. The member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau) does not indicate what railway or railways he has in mind at Saskatoon.
Assuming that he means the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific, both under Canadian National operation, it should be pointed out that the question as to whether such information should be made public is at present before the Select Committee on Railways and Shipping. Saskatoon is an important competitive point, and the information asked for would be of service to the Canadian National's chief competitor.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. EULER:: What is the number of voters in each riding, on the lists upon which the recent prohibition referendum was held on April 18, in the province of Ontario?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a return showing the names of all postmasters in the counties of Chambly and VerchSres, in the province of Quebec, the date of their respective appointments, and the name of the person who recommended the appointment of such officials in each case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the Government or any official of the Insurance Department with any member of any Provincial Government or any Provincial Superintendent of Insurance or any association of Provincial Superintendents of Insurance with respect to the resolution amending the Insurance Act standing in the Minister of Finance's name on the Order Paper or the subject matter of the resolution.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 130, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: I assume that the
statement which was made by the hon. Solicitor General in moving the first reading of this Bill is correct, namely, that it simply embodies the different recommendations which the Chief Electoral Officer presented to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and which were unanimously
MAY 9, lf>21
approved by that committee. As far as I can see in looking over the Bill, these recommendations appear to relate exclusively to matters of administration, and have nothing whatever to do with any question of principle involved in the Act. I would ask the minister if, when the Bill goes into committee, he will be prepared to consider other amendments than those which are embodied in the Bill. There are two or three features of the Dominion Elections Act which by-elections recently held disclose to be in the public interest. There is one clause in particular which has been strongly objected to by members on this side of the House, the clause relating to a class of voters who have to appear before a judge in order to get a voting certificate before they are allowed to vote. That is a clause that should come up for further consideration when the Bill is before the House. Will my hon. friend state whether he will be prepared to consider either amending the Bill in this and other respects at the present time, or referring certain amendments to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for their consideration at this present session?


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. minister rises to speak, I must remind the House that lie will be exercising his right to close the debate, and if any other hon. member desires to speak upon the second reading, he should do so now.


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), is correct in his statement that this Bill follows with precision the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer to his Honour the Speaker, pursuant to the terms of the Dominion Elections Act, and the Bill as now presented embodies only amendments which were prepared by the' Chief Electoral Officer, considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and unanimously agreed to and reported to this House. No other amendments are proposed by the Government. But I do not see that there can be any objection to considering other amendments when the Bill is in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-urban polling division:
Hugh Guthrie: The change in this
section is in regard to the number of population required to constitute an urban
division. In the Act as passed last session, the number was 1,000; it is now proposed to make it 2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-administration of oaths:
Hugh Guthrie: This is merely to empower the election clerk as well as other officials to administer oaths.
Section agreed.
On section 3-revising officers:	.


Hugh Guthrie: The former rule 11 was said to be cumbersome and difficult of interpretation. The object of this amendment is to clarify the rule as far as possible, and correct some apparent errors in it. The former rule did not provide for duties being performed by district judges in any province but the province of Quebec. Now we have district judges in the province of Ontario, and that fact was overlooked last session. In the northern portions of Ontario there are district judges.
*


Mr. McKENZIE:: There is a schedule of
fees for the payment of judges, but what about those persons whom they may appoint when they are unable to act? Is there any provision for the payment of a man whom the judge appoints, when he cannot attend to all the business, to act in place of himself?


Hugh Guthrie: Paragraph (d) provides as follows:
The duties hereby imposed upon judges shall be deemed to have been imposed upon, and to have been performable by them since the thirtieth day of June, 1920, and any fees allowed to revising officers by any tariff of fees approved under section seventy-six of this Act shall be payable to judges who hereafter personally undertake the revision of lists of voters.
It is an addition to the judicial salary of course.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But a judge is authorized to appoint another man in his place under this Act. A judge who has two or three counties to look after, as is the case in our province, and can only attend to one county himself, has power to appoint somebody else in another county. There appears to be no provision for the payment of that man.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that such substitute may exercise all powers and perform all duties. I would think one of his functions would be to receive the fees prescribed by this Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not make it perfectly clear by adding "that the fees shall be paid to the judge or any person appointed by him"?


Mr. FIELDING:: Is it deemed expedient that judges should be paid for doing this work? We have recently increased the salaries of judges and therefore why have we to pay them extra. I object to the whole idea. I think a good salary should be given to a judge-I do not at all object to that-but he should not get extras in any shape or form for the performance of the duties which pertain to his office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is also this fact to be borne in mind: On Friday, I think it was, we had a little discussion in the House about judges who might be called upon to preside over inquiries or investigations, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) refused to concur in an amendment made by the Senate debarring judges from accepting such positions. The right hon. gen-tlemati stated that last year, when the Judges' Act was amended, and salaries of the judges were increased, and so increased with the idea of debarring them in future from accepting any remuneration where they presided over inquiries or special investigations. The increased salaries granted to judges, therefore, debars them from accepting any other remuneration. In the case of this legislation they are carrying out the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, and it seems to me they should not receive any special remuneration in the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That may apply all
right to a judge, but the man whom the judge appoints gets no remuneration at all. Surely he should be paid for his work, but apparently no provision has been made for that.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite concur that we should make provision to pay a substitute. It would be all right to do that. I do not think the substitute, who possibly gets no other remuneration from the Government, should be debarred from payment; we cannot expect him to work for nothing. But surely we have a right to expect that every judge in the Dominion of Canada who is in receipt of a salary-and if the salary is not sufficiently generous I would make it so -should perform these duties without receiving any extra remuneration in any shape or form.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: If they do not get the extra remuneration will they not appoint substitutes in most cases?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, let them do it.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no tariff of fees applicable to judges at the present time, but I suppose there is power in the Act to fix such a tariff. Section 76 of the Act is the one which applies in regard to the fees and expenses of election ^officers. It provides as follows:
Upon the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Governor in Council may make a tariff of fees, costs, allowances and expenses to be paid and allowed to returning officers and other persons employed at or with respect to elections under this Act, and may, from time to time, revise and amend such tariff.
The judges are not specifically mentioned. I suppose they would be included in the general language "returning officers and other persons." When a tariff of fees is fixed the provision is that it should be laid before the House of Commons within the first fifteen days after the next ensuing session. The amendment does propose specifically to include judges. I suppose they would have been included under the former tariff under the words "other persons" although they are not named there as they are in the present proposal. '


William Stevens Fielding: But will my hon.
friend himself not volunteer an amendment that this provision shall not now apply to the judges? There is a principle in this matter. We have been increasing the salaries of the judges on the ground that the dignity and responsibilities of their office require generous treatment. I agree with that, I do not quarrel with giving any judge a generous salary; but I do ask the minister not to introduce in this legislation any provision to pay extra remuneration to judges,-I think it is a very undignified way for judges to get their money.


Hugh Guthrie: On principle I agree with my hon. friend, but I think there must have been a reason in the mind of the Chief Electoral Officer when this clause was worded as it is. However, I will ask the committee to allow the clause to stand until I have had an opportunity of consulting with him.


William Stevens Fielding: All right.
Section stands.
On Section 4-name omitted added to list.


Hugh Guthrie: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned a moment ago that a test has been made of certain features of 'this Act and that some recent experiences have proven the existence of certain limitations in the measure, and I asked the minister if he would consider submitting some representations to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for their consideration. I would like to read him, if I might, part of a communication which I have received from the Attorney General of Alberta in reference to the powers of the registrars and the manner in which this clause in the Act operated in the taking of the recent plebiscite in that province. The communication is dated November 20, 1920:
We had a sample of how it worked in connection with taking the plebiscite in Alberta. The following are a few of the worst features of it:
1.	Registration is not made by polling subdivisions, and the person registering does not know what polling subdivision he will be placed in, even if his name be placed on the list.
2.	There is no means provided for any record which would be a check upon a dishonest registrar ; the voter appearing before the registrar is not required to sign anything and does not receive any document whereby he could prove that he had personally appeared and registered. The result is, and it happened in the recent plebiscite, that a man may appear before the registrar and think he has done everything to get his name on the list, and discovers afterwards that the registrar denies having ever seen him.
Then the communication contains a rather appropriate suggestion with reference to the practice followed in British Columbia regarding registration, which might be deserving of consideration:
British Columbia has the only fair registration system, and in that province all persons applying for registration sign an application. This application is placed on file by the registrar and the original is given to the deputy returning officer before polling day and is by him taken to the poll. When a voter comes to vote he is required to sign his name before he gets his ballot, and comparison can be made between " his signature and the original signature of the party who registered. This is not only a valuable
check against impersonation, but is some guarantee that the party actually appeared and made application to be placed upon the list.
I think the minister will see that these suggestions have considerable force, and while I am not prepared and would not like to take up the time of the committee in moving any formal amendment at the present time, I should like to suggest to my hon. friend that he consider whether these suggestions might not properly be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections, with a view of having the Act amended in a manner that will make the registration more effective and less liable to be misinterpreted one way or the other.


Hugh Guthrie: I have had a number
of discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer with regard to the manner in which the Election Act has worked in the various constituencies where it has been on trial, and from all I can gather from him it has worked exceptionally well and few, if any complaints have been received. It is the privilege and duty of successful and unsuccessful candidates after a by-election to make reports under the law of any defects or unsatisfactory conditions in the working of the Act. The suggestions are all brought to this House in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. Any suggestions so far received are of very minor importance, in fact we have heard scarcely anything but commendation of the working of the Act. After discussing all the suggestions with the Chief Electoral Officer, he thinks that we have hardly had sufficient experience under the Act yet to see just where it can or can not be materially improved. I am satisfied that it has given pretty general satisfaction so far. One great objection to it, no doubt, in the future is going to be the fact that it will be a fairly expensive Act to administer. But, as to giving a complete record of persons entitled to vote which is up to date in every respect, I think it is a decided advance on any other Act we have ever had on the statute book.
I had an opportunity of discussing with the premier of British Columbia a few days ago the method adopted for indenti-fication of voters in his province, and he told me that the system was particularly necessary there because they had what was known as a "shifting vote" in almost eyery constituency, which in many instances would run to forty, fifty and sixty per cent of the total population. He said that under their system special steps had to be taken towards better indentification than was

probably necessary in the other provinces. I think that is a very good system, but it would be fairly cumbersome and slow and would add still further expense to the working out of this Act. It might be well that these suggestions should be considered at some future time, but I do not think at present they are of sufficient importance, nor have we sufficient information in regard to them, to delay the present Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These suggestions come from the Attorney General of Alberta, and he being the legal member of his government is probably the person best qualified to express an opinion on its behalf. I think representations coming from such a quarter in regard to actual experience under a plebiscite which of course relates to the working of the Act as a whole in that province, are of a character that the Government cannot regard too carefully. I hope my hon. friend will consider further the suggestion I have made of referring these with other possible suggestions to the committee on Privileges and Elections, and thereby perhaps avoid the necessity of any formal amendment in the House.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-copy of certified list for returning officer:
Hugh Guthrie: The section as at
present framed reads as follows:
Every registrar, having revised and corrected such retained copy of the voters' list compiled by him shall write at the foot of such copy and close to the last name thereon, on the ninth day before the polling day, a certificate in the form of the certificate contained in said Form No. 11 to this Act. He shall also on the same day deliver or mail by registered letter to the returning officer a copy of the list so certified-
Then follow these words, which should not be in the section at all:
-and the returning officer shall forthwith transmit the same to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Their retention would deprive the returning officer of his only copy of the list. Section agreed to.
On section 6-when new lists unnecessary :


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that addition?


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 1 of section 32 at present reads:
Except as provided in tnis section, it shall not be necessary to prepare new lists of voters for the purposes of any election to be held in any electoral district when there has been in that electoral district a previous election for 
which the lists of voters prepared are of record in the office of the Electoral Officer and there is an interval of less than two years between the dates of the writs for the two elections.
The proposed amendment is in the first line, and is made by inserting after the word "except" the following words: "at a general election and". The section will then read:
Except at a general election and as provided in this section,-
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-indexed copies of Act or excerpts therefrom for election officers:
Hugh Guthrie: That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is a great improvement. The present law is that a copy of the Act shall be given to these officials and they shall be allowed to study and interpret it for themselves. Under this proposal the Chief Electoral Officer shall get up in concise form the main and important provisions of the Act in a way that will be easily intelligible to the ordinary layman. It is hoped that in this way a great deal of the difficulty which we now find in interpreting the Act may be avoided.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-postponement of nomination day on death of candidate:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the change there?


Hugh Guthrie: Section 42 of the present Act reads:
Whenever from unforeseen accident, delays or otherwise, the proclamation in Form No. 19 cannot be mailed as in section 37 required, or whenever any candidate dies after being nominated and before the close of the polls, the returning officer shall fix another day for the nomination of candidates, which day shall be the nearest which will admit of compliance with the requirements of said section, and shall reissue and republish in manner provided by this Act said proclamation, with such necessary changes thereof as result from the postponement of the nominations. In every such case, the returning officer shall, with his return, make to the Chief Electoral Officer a special report of the causes which occasioned such postponement.
<* _ _
This section was held to be too indefinite to be any kind of guide to the ordinary returning officer; he would not know the number of days necessary to elapse and might innocently make a mistake in fixing the new date. The new section is more definite in its terms.


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose a candidate
were to die the day after the election, or before the day of declaration and return,

would the returning officer have to return the dead man as elected?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the Act law as it has always stood, I do not think there would he anything else for him to do.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: This
amendment seems to do away with the proviso "whenever from unforeseen accident, delay or otherwise", and to limit the occasion for postponement to the death of the candidate. Might not some other unforeseen accident or occurrence make a postponement necessary?


Hugh Guthrie: The Chief Electoral
Officer thought that everything was pretty definitely determined by the law, and himself suggested that these words be taken out, and that the section should provide only for postponement in the case of the death of a candidate.


Levi Thomson: If it were found impossible to take the necessary steps for an election before the proper date, what would be the effect?


Hugh Guthrie: We have provided for that in the general clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-oath of secrecy:
Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 1 of section 52 permits each candidate to be represented by two agents or electors who are given the right to be present in the polling station. Subsection 2, however, requires only one of those electors or agents to take the oath, a limitation which seems an obvious error. The repeal of subsections 1 to 3 inclusive of section 52 and their re-enactment in the terms of the Bill is recommended.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has said that the Bill follows word for word and without variation the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer. I find, however, that the Chief Electoral Officer recommends in this case the repeal of subsections 1 to 3, inclusive, of section 52 and their re-enactment in the terms following; then the "terms following" include clauses 1, 2 and 3. Clauses 1 and 3 do not appear in the Bill and clause 2 does not appear in the terms in which it appears in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.


Hugh Guthrie: After discussing the
report fully in the committee the Chief Electoral Officer himself undertook to remedy the defect by re-writing this amendment in the form in which it is printed in the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then the
amendment as it now stands has been approved by both the Chief Electoral Officer and the committee?


Hugh Guthrie: It was drafted by the Chief Electoral Officer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-when polls shall be held:
Hugh Guthrie: The effect of subsection 1 of section 55 was to permit in certain byelections seven days to elapse between nomination and polling. The Chief Electoral Officer thinks it would be better to make it fourteen days for all elections; consequently the special provision with regard to seven days, being the last paragraph of subsection 1 of section 55, is struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11

hours of polling:
Mr; GUTHRIE: The present section provides that the polls shall be opened at the hour of six o'clock in the forenoon in urban polling divisions and be kept open until six o'clock in the afternoon, and that in rural polling divisions the polls shall be kept open from eight o'clock in the forenoon until six o'clock in the afternoon. The practical experience has been that few if any votes have been cast before eight o"clock in the morning; the officials have been in their places, but the voters have not come forward to vote. The committee thought, therefore, that the change embodied in the present amendment would be satisfactory to all persons concerned.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was suggested last year that the hour of opening should be eight instead of six. This change, like several others, follows the recommendation made from this side.


Hugh Guthrie: We will give my hon. friend credit for it, then, I do not remember it.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: There is not the slightest necessity in rural districts of opening polls at eight o'clock and closing them at six o'clock; all votes can be polled between the hours of nine and five, and in those districts where there is not a very large number of voters, from nine and five is a long enough time to stay at the polls. I do not speak now about cities or towns where men are at their work and may want to go to the polls at a later or an earlier hour. In rural districts, the old law of opening the polls at nine and closing at five was very satisfactory.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been said-I do not know whether there is much foundation for the statement or not-that the hours are too short in the rural sections of Ontario, for instance, in certain rural polls where perhaps <350 votes may be cast. Time is not allowed for casting all the votes if voter after voter is challenged. In fact, many representations were
4 p.m. made, prior tp the last referendum in Ontario, that the hours of polling should be extended, if possible. There is also power in rural districts to add names at the polls,, and that takes a little time. For those reasons, it would be well to keep to the hours of nine in the morning to six at night. Although I myself preferred the old method of opening at nine in the rhorning and closing at five in the afternoon, on account of the extra oath that may be administered it is necessary to give a little more time. We can see how this works out at a general election.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice the period
between nomination and polling day is extended from seven to fourteen days all around. Has any corresponding change been made as regards the completion of the lists? There was some fixed time before polling day when lists had to be completed. Can the minister from memory tell me when the lists must be completed? Must they be completed before nomination day?


Hugh Guthrie: That has not been
changed in any way. I could not from memory state the number of days. A tremendous number of calculations of time are involved, and while the Chief Electoral Officer has them at his finger ends, I have not. The only change in the section to which my hon. friend refers would affect certain by-elections. The Act of last session provided that in certain by-elections where there were lists, only seven days should elapse between nomination day and polling day. The general provision in the Act is that in all elections the period should be fourteen days. The effect of the present amendment is to make the fourteen-day period applicable to all elections, whether general or by-elections. Consequently, all the calculations of time that would apply with respect to the fourteen-day period, will apply under this amendment as well as under the Act of last session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 12-name, address and occupation corresponding closely to another.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At what stage of the
proceedings is a man called upon t6 take this very drastic oath? A man may be mistaken as to his qualifications. In the province from which I come, a man's name appears on the list, and it is taken for granted that he is a qualified voter. This sounds a little drastic-that a man should swear that he is qualified. He may make a mistake; there may be some property disqualification of which he knows nothing. This is a very far-reaching oath.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say that
my hon. friend's friends in the committee insisted on this oath. The objection which they took to this Bill was that this oath was not in the former legislation. I do not think the oath is any more drastic than the ordinary oath. A man who makes a mistake, if his mistake was a bona fide one, could hardly be chargeable, taking an oath of this kind, with committing the offence of taking an improper oath. In order that he may be so chargeable, the offence must be wilful and corrupt.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It might be presumed to be done maliciously.


Hugh Guthrie: It might be; but all
the oaths attached to the schedule to this legislation are equally strong in language, and they are drawn with the idea of making them as strong as they can be made. This oath was insisted upon by hon. gentlemen opposite in the committee; a legal gentleman, whom they had present as an expert, dwelt particularly on this oath, and the committee agreed that it should be inserted. The object of this clause, as pointed out by the Chief Electoral Officer, is that:
There is no provision made in the Act for an oath to be sworn by a person who applies to vote and whose name, address and occupation is almost but not quite identical with a name, address and occupation appearing on the voters' list ; in other words, no provision is made to meet the case of clerical or like errors made by a. registrar or revising officer. When provincial lists were used at Dominion elections the procedure in such cases was ordinarily governed by the provincial laws, but now that special Dominion lists are always prepared, the Dominion Elections Aot should, it Would appear, specify a procedure to be followed. The insertion of a new section as section 57 A, and of a new oath as Form 32 A, in the following terms would meet the case.


John Howard Sinclair: I can
see that that is a very necessary provision, but some difficulty might arise. Suppose the names of two men are similar. Let us say

that the name on the list is "John McDonald," and a man called John J. McDonald comes to vote on "that name; he takes the oath, and he says that he is qualified. There is only a slight difference between the two names. When the real John McDonald turns up in a few minutes and wants to vote, what becomes of him?


Hugh Guthrie: The Chief Electoral
Officer points out to me that the same difficulty would exist in regard to any name. Suppose the name "John Smith" is on the list, and a man comes along and says: "I am John Smith," and he swears to that. The thing has happened. The real John Smith may come along after this, and somebody has voted for him.


John Howard Sinclair: Is he
debarred from voting?


Hugh Guthrie: In a rural division he
certainly could vote by taking the oath. In an urban division there is also a special provision and a special oath to cover the case cited by my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: Then
they would both vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. The man would
have to take a special oath.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-application for recount on re-addition by judge:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand this to mean that there may be a recount after the candidate has been declared elected? Did not the old law provide that the candidate must apply for a recount before the declaration day? It seems extraordinary that a man should be declared elected, a recount take place, and that he be declared elected again.


Hugh Guthrie: My information is that prior to the Act of last session there could be no recount until somebody had been declared elected. It was provided that, so many days after the declaration, the party aggrieved could apply for a recount, but until somebody was declared elected no application for a recount could be entertained. The provision here is that an application for a recount shall be made within four days after the declaration. The amendment goes further and provides that in cases where the judge has territorial jurisdiction over several ridings, in case there may be two or three applications to him for a recount, he shall take them in the order in which they come to him, and further,
where one riding extends into two or three territorial jurisdictions of judges, provision here is made as to the judge to whom application shall be made. These were omissions in the Act of last session which we desire to clear up.


Levi Thomson: 
Hugh Guthrie: I think the question of an improper addition is covered by the language of this section. It says:.
If within four days after the day on which the returning officer has declared a candidate elected it is made to appear, on the affidavit of a credible witness, to the judge hereafter described, that a deputy returning officer in counting" the votes-
It is the deputy that does the counting.
-has improperly counted or improperly rejected-
That is, refused to count
-any ballot papers or has made an incorrect statement of the number of ballots cast for any candidate-
Would not that cover everything?


Levi Thomson: I think probably that
last would cover it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not this a new
section altogether as compared with the election law before the 1917 War-time Elections Act? I think the old law was entirely different.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it was
different. This was taken from the old section No., 193.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the old law
contained provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court judge, but as I heard the Chairman read this section, I did not hear any such provision.


Mr. COPP:: The last two lines provide
that "all such recounts or re-additions shall proceed continuously from day to day until the last of them has been completed." Does that mean that there can be no postponement for any cause whatsoever?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the judge would always have jurisdiction to grant any reasonable postponement. That would be considered a proceeding from day to day.


Arthur Bliss Copp: An adjournment by the
judge?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-report by returning officer: *
Hugh Guthrie: The section as it appears in the Act requires the returning officer to make a report as to the state of the ballot boxes or ballot papers as received by him. Now the returning officer, if he does his duty, never sees the ballot papers except in the case of a recount, and it appears likely that the clause was intended to refer to the election papers as received from deputy returning officers. The repeal of the subsection and its re-enactment in its present form is to prevent a misconception.


Mr. McMASTER:: Section 2, subsection
(f) of the Act defines the words "election papers" to mean all ballot papers including unused ballot books, lists of voters, and other documents used at a polling station. These words would therefore include ballots as well as the books kept at the different polls.


Hugh Guthrie: In subsection (1) of
section 72, paragraph (b) of the Act as it stands, the returning officer, immediately after the election, is required to transmit by registered post to the Chief Electoral Officer a return of his proceedings, which return shall contain such observations as he may think proper as to the state of the ballot boxes or the ballot papers as received by him. Now, the term "election papers" includes ballot papers, but, as pointed out by the Chief Electoral Officer, the returning officer will never see the ballot papers. The deputy is the man who sees them put into the boxes. He seals the boxes and they are all forwarded to the returning officer with the other returns described under the term "election papers".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 15-penalty for voting if disqualified, not qualified or incompetent
Hugh Guthrie: This section contains
a provision which was omitted from the Act of last session. In the opinion of the committee it should be inserted now.


Levi Thomson: I notice, in section 64, subsection 2, of the Act, provision is made for the laying of information, while there is no punishment meted out, and I am not sure that in some cases punishment should be inflicted. We saw in the referendum in our province, perhaps more clearly than we should see in a General election, what would be the effect of the application of this section if it were applied to all sorts of elections, such as that particular one. If the section were applied to referendum elections some unreasonable things might occur. For instance, though the referendum vote was province-wide, and affected every person in every constituency, many persons under the Act were shut out. This happened in the case of people living on the border line between two constituencies. I know of a girl, a teacher, whose home was in the town of Woiseley. She had lived there up to a short time before the election, but was not residing there at the time, having crossed the river Qu'Appelle to teach in a neighbouring school. According to the Act she was not entitled to vote anywhere, although as a matter of fact, I believe, the registrar in the polling district where she was living at the time of the election, put her name on the list without application on her part. Suppose that girl had voted, would she have been liable to imprisonment under this Act? It seems to me that a great many cases of that kind may and will occur. I believe that most of the offences that will be tried under the Act, under the provision that prohibits a person from voting where he is not entitled to vote, will be committed by those who feel they have a moral right to vote where they do vote, although technically they might be shut out. When a person finds himself accidentally on the voters' list in a district where he is living at the time of the election, even though he has not been living in the district the required length of time prior to the election, he will be tempted to vote, and it is not very probable that people generally will be aware of the provision of the Act which makes it an indictable offence to exercise what they may believe to be a moral right. Perhaps the minister will tell us what the effect would be if a person were placed on the

list, without his application, in a rural polling division where he lived, and he went in and voted. Would he be guilty of an indictable offence?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot see what wrong he would be doing. In the first place, in a rural poll, he would have a right to vote on polling day.


Levi Thomson: Not necessarily. I
am supposing a case where he had not the technical right to vote because he had come in from an adjoining constituency. There may be something more to be said in favour of punishing a voter in the case of a general election than in the case of a referendum. But suppose a person goes across the boundary line and, not having lived two months in the rural district where he desires to vote, he finds his name on the voters' 'list, although he had taken no part whatever in having it placed there. It is the most natural thing in the world that under such circumstances he would want to vote. If he did so, would he be guilty of an indictable offence?


Hugh Guthrie: In that case, I understand, he does not take the oath at all.


Levi Thomson: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, uniless he deliberately and intentionally seeks to do a wrong in voting when he knows he is not entitled to voted, I do not think he would be liable to punishment. I grant that in the working out of this Act, particularly in endeavouring to apply it to the Canada Temperance Act, there were considerable difficulties to be overcome. But it was thought by this House to be far better to apply the Act than to pass new and elaborate machinery to take a single referendum. The difficulty which my hon. friend points out in Saskatchewan and Alberta was overcome in the province of Ontario by an amendment which we passed during the first weeks of this session. We allowed the provincial franchise in Ontario, so that a man, notwithstanding thet he was on the list for the city of Toronto, could vote in the city of Ottawa if he had been here two months; and if he went to a rural poll, he could vote in any case, no matter in what part of the province he resided, so long as he could swear that he had been two months resident in Ontario. When the votes were taken in the western provinces on the referendum, this difficulty was not anticipated and considerable inconvenience arose in consequence.


Levi Thomson: Perhaps I am taking up too much time over this, but I think there will be some difference of opinion as to the meaning of some of these clauses. This section, for instance, speaks of a person who votes or attempts to vote, knowing that he is for any reason disqualified, non-qualified, or incompetent to vote. Now, a person whose name has been placed on the voters' list may say he is not disqualified. He is not non-qualified or non-competent because his name is on the list and he has been asked to vote, but would he, because he was a few days short of the time, be liable to criminal prosecution by reason of voting when his name was placed on the list without any request of his own.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see how any man could get his name on the list without any request of his own, under this law. In the first place the rural enumerator takes as a basis the provincial list where there is one that is not more than two years old. There is a provision, in addition, for a man to apply to get his name on. How then does somebody else get this fellow's name on the list?


Levi Thomson: I am talking of the
practice-in our part of the country. I do not think that, we have, in the rural parts of Saskatchewan-but as to that I am not sure-any list to start with. I think the general practice is for the registrar or enumerator in the first place to make out a list of voters in the polling district. He knows that a certain person is living in the district, and he thinks that person is entitled to vote and he puts his name on the list. The person in question sees his name on the list and very naturally says "I am not disqualified, I am not nonqualified, I am not non-competent, for they have put my name on the list. Therefore I vote."


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt very much whether any one could prosecute that man.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-voting on advanced polls.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any change there?


Hugh Guthrie: Under subsections 9 and 10 of section 100 as it now stands, certificates entitling a voter to vote at an advanced poll may be issued at any polling division by the registrar or the revising officer. Both urban and rural registrars are thus entitled to issue these certificates, although the urban registrar prepares only

a preliminary list which may be substantially changed by the revising officer. Transfer certificates, under section 53, can be issued only by the revising officer in urban polling divisions, but a corresponding limitation with respect to certificates to voters at advanced polls would prevent possible irregularities. This would involve the repeal of section 100 subsection 9, paragraph (a) and the first line of section 100, subsection 10, and of the substitution therefor of the following, -the amendments being indicated in italics. Then in the Bill we have the amendments suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-issue of certificate gratis to applicant for vote at advanced poll.
Hugh Guthrie: That is just consequent on the last section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-attendance of officers and notice of time and place.
Hugh Guthrie: That is for the general information and convenience of those persons entitled to vote at advanced polls.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-no amendment to apply to election for which writ is issued within three months, except after notice.
Hugh Guthrie: This is by way of safeguard in order to provide time for the necessary printing to be done in case amendments are made by Parliament at any session and an election held shortly thereafter. The note I have from the chief electoral officer is as follows:
Amendments of the Act often, indeed almost always, involve change in the forms and instructions, and if they go into force suddenly, upon receiving the Royal assent, grave inconvenience might arise and irregularities ensue by reason of the use in an immediately following election of forms and instructions for the reprinting of which the interval was insufficient. Tihe insertion in section 102 of the following is recommended to cover this point and authorize consolidation of amendments to the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. -
On section 20-new forms substituted.
Hugh Guthrie: The reason for this is that it was found, notwithstanding the care that was exercised in the preparation of the forms last session when the Act was passed, that there were very important clerical errors in the forms, some of them very serious and some maybe exceedingly misleading. In the interval the forms have been thoroughly revised, 
and we think all such irregularities, all such clerical errors, have now been eliminated. The proposal is, and it has met with the hearty approval of the committee, that the forms should be re-enacted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: All of them?


Hugh Guthrie: All of them, in order that we may get rid of the old forms, which were open to a good deal of doubt, and have an entirely new set, and that is the object of the next two sections. There is one other form which is even omitted in this compilation and which the Chief Electoral Officer has handed to me. Perhaps I can deal with it now. It will be known as "Form No. 29" under section 53, "the form of oath in Transfer Certificate." It is apparently the ordinary oath but was omitted in the book. This is to take the place of the one in the old Act which the Chief Electoral Officer says is inadequate. The form of oath is as follows:
Form No. 29 (S. 53)
Oath on Transfer 'Certificate ^ I, (Name) of (address) (occupation) do swear (or affirm) that:
1.	I am the person described in the transfer
certificate which I produce authorizing me to vote in Polling Division No.	instead of
in the Polling Division No.	in the electoral district of	:
2.	I am a British subject of the full age of
twenty-one years and have ordinarily resided in Canada for the year and in this electoral district for the two months immediately preceding the	day of	19	,
(naming the date of the issue of the writ of election).
3.	I am not within any of the classes of persons who lack qualification or are disqualified by reason of appointment to judicial office, employment for pay or reward in reference to the election, place of birth, race, crime, mental incapacity, the receipt of public charitable support or disfranchisement for corrupt or illegal practices.
4.	I have not already voted at this election and have not been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice in relation thereto, So Help Me God.
Sworn (or affirmed) before me at the polling station for polling division No.	this	dayof	, 19	.
Deputy Returning Officer.
This is the oath which applies to those persons who vote on transfer certificates, scrutineers, and the like.
On the schedule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have all
these forms been approved by the Chief Electoral Officer and by the Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they have all been drawn by the Chief Electoral Officer and approved by the committee unanimously. Form 29 is the one I read.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Speaking as a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, I do not remember that we ever went over all these forms. We took the word of the Chief Electoral Officer and of the minister that the forms were consistent with the Act, and that the changes made in them were merely so that the forms would dovetail-to use the minister's expression-in with the Act itself. But I should not like the committee to receive the impression that the Committee on Privileges and Elections had really worked [DOT]over these forms.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: If not you ought to have done so.


William Daum Euler: Before we go on with the schedules, Mr. Chairman, am I in order in proposing an additional clause?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member would certainly be in order in proposing an additional clause now, but as we have already started on the schedule, and as I understand the minister desires to dispose of clause 3, if the hon. member will allow the present amendment to be proceeded with he will have an opportunity later to move his additional clause.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that the section be amended by striking out Form 29 and substituting therefor the form which I have just submitted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the committee returned to the consideration of section 3- revising officers.
Hugh Guthrie: Under the Elections
Act passed last session judges would certainly have been entitled to fees but for the provisions of the Judges Act. Under that Act it has been held that a judge performing services during an election could not receive fees. The judges have performed a lot of pretty hard work in this connection, and it has been suggested to the Chief Electoral Officer-not to the Government or any member of it-that they might receive reasonable remuneration for such services. The Chief Electoral Officer points out that if Parliament wants the lists to be revised by judges provision for payment will have to be made, and that if we do not make
such provision the greater part of the lists will be revised by substitutes appointed by the judges.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who would be
lawyers?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; but the substitutes will be paid. If it is the desire of the House to utilize the services of judges for this work, I fancy that as a practical matter we will have to make provision for their payment. A judge has power under the Act to appoint substitutes, and it is absolutely necessary that that power be given because in many ridings, such as Toronto, Montreal, and the like, a judge cannot do all the work and substitutes are a necessity. If the judges find they are not going to receive anything for their labours, they will not work any harder and substitutes will be appointed. Personally I do not favour paying judges, and it is a suggestion made by the Chief Electoral Officer for the working out of the Act. Whatever the committee decides will be agreeable to the Government.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend does not state in so many words that the judges, although paid servants of the country, will not do their duty under this Act unless paid extra, but that is the implication. I am quite willing to have our judges well paid-and I have supported every proposal to increase their salaries-but I hope the suggestion is not justified that they, who should he the highest exemplars of good citizenship, will not do their work without receiving extra pay, although they are already paid liberal salaries. If we want the judges to do this work, it is part of the public service for which they are already paid, and they have no right to receive extra payment for it.


Hugh Guthrie: We have not placed
this as an obligation on the judges; they have the option under the Act of doing it or not doing it. The idea I intended to convey was that if they get nothing for their services they will probably appoint substitutes to do the work, and those substitutes will have to he paid; hut if the provision in this amendment were to pass, judges doing the work would receive the same remuneration as their substitutes.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend can provide that it is incumbent on a judge to do this work in so far as his other duties will permit him, but where that is not the case he will be allowed to appoint


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
a substitute. I am obliged to repeat my former observation that the time a judge devotes to this work is time for which he is already paid.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's in respect to what should properly be regarded as the duties of judges. The duty of a judge in administering the law is a part of his profession, and he certainly should not get any extra payment for the discharge of that duty; but when we take him away from that and ask him to do work that has nothing to do with his calling or training as a lawyer, we are asking him to do something which his salary as a judge is not intended to cover at all. The minister has not said anything about the point I raised in regard to those salaries. There must be substitutes, and there is no provision made for their payment in the amendment read by the Chairman. If an account came to the hands of the Auditor General for payment of such work, I think he would be disposed to say, "there is no provision under this Act for passing this account." If this provision for paying a judge is made to read that it shall also apply to the man he appoints in his place, I think it would very much simplify matters, and we would not be troubled with what construction a taxing officer might put upon the law. If the judges are called upon to do work which is outside their regular duties they should be paid for it just as anybody else would be paid for it.


William Stevens Fielding: But a judge who does that work is devoting his time to a service which has no relation whatever to his duties of office.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But he has to do the other work as well.


William Daum Euler: Will this provision apply in the case of judges who issue voting certificates under section 29?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the present
iariff, framed under section 76, the whole fee to which a judge or his substitute would be entitled, for doing all the work in connection with an election would be $50.


Levi Thomson: It would seem to be the general policy of the House to avoid extra payments to judges, and to let them depend on the salaries which we vote them. I think there is a great deal in the contention of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's that when we assign

a salary to a judge we are paying him for such time as he is able to give to the service of the country. I know, and the minister himself knows, that there are some judges who have not much to do, but who get the same salaries as those who have twice as much to do; I think that is why the minister himself is not wholly in favour of his amendment. Some judges have very little to do; others have too much to do. In the case of the judge whose duties are so great that he has no time to give to such services as these, it is well that we should have a provision enabling him to engage some one else to do it. But where the judge himself does the work-and a great many of them will feel that they themselves should do it-I do not think they should be given extra pay, because if that judge has not enough work to do there is no reason why he should not give gratis the time for these duties. There is no reason why the judge who has only half enough work to keep him busy should get extra pay which the busy man is not in a position to get. I think, therefore, that the amendment should be voted down.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Every province has
its set times and places for holding courts in all districts. The time for the opening and closing of the court is set. The judges must hold chambers on certain days of the week. The judges must have time to keep abreast of their profession and thus be enabled to discharge properly their duties as judges. But you cannot put judges out at statute labour between times; you cannot send them to follow threshing mills and do that sort of thing. That is not their business. They are called upon to do certain work at certain times and outside of that we have no claim on their time.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: I agree
with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. The judges should be well paid. I think that since I have been in this house we have twice increased the salaries of judges. If those salaries are not sufficiently high we should increase them still further. But I do object to any particular class of people having their salaries increased indirectly through fees and commissions and things of that kind. I notice, of course, the very earnest manner in which the lawyers of the House come to the defence of the judges, not only on this occasion but on every occasion. I am not saying they should not, because they all

have prospective judgeships in mind, I presume.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Perish the thought!


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.
Mr. McGIBBON ^Muskoka):	I think
the principle is bad, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that judges, especially judges of the county court in Ontario, are worked very hard. In fact, any of them with whose work I happen to be acquainted have a very easy time. Some of them hold court three or four times a year, three or four days each time, and they are quite free not only to leave their districts at times, but occasionally to leave the province and sometimes the country for long periods.


Mr. JACOBS:: That is because the doctor orders complete rest.


Peter McGibbon: I hope my hon. friend will have a very considerate physician when he reaches that stage. As I say, the principle is absolutely wrong. The judges are certainly supposed to give all their time to the country's interest, and if these matters come under their jurisdiction I do not think they should receive extra pay.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Daum Euler: Before the Bill goes out
of committee I would like to suggest the addition of a clause, amending section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act of last year. I directed the attention of the minister and of the Government last year to what I thought was an injustice in connection with the disfranchisement of certain citizens. At that time the Government gave us an amendment which corrected the wrong to some extent but which in my opinion did not go far enough. Believing as I do that a thing is not settled until it is settled right, I am going to suggest to the minister the addition of a clause which will remove entirely what I believe to be an injustice to a large number of Canadian citizens.
I should like to explain briefly the significance of the clause to which I take exception, subsection 2 of section 29. It is that all women of alien origin who are married to British subjects and by virtue of that marriage have themselves become British subjects are not given the vote as are their sister British subjects in this country, without being put to the necessity of appearing before a judge to whom they must show cause why they should be granted a voting certificate. In effect,
197J
while it is possible for these women to obtain voting privileges, the provision results in the practical disfranchisement of 100,000 or more people who are citizens of Canada under the law. I want to suggest that the conferring of citizenship should carry with it the franchise without unnecessary restrictions. In my opinion the min-, ister offered no convincing reason last year why an exception should be made in the case of these women. To-day we have a condition whereby not only women of former enemy alien origin but women who come from France or Belgium or Italy or Russia, if they are married to Canadian citizens and have thus become British subjects, are debarred from voting if they do not go to the trouble of appearing before a judge. I will admit frankly that a good many people in my constituency are affected by this. I think many more are affected in the western provinces. I would again urge upon the minister to go the whole length of removing this grievance and of allowing British citizenship to carry with it the right to vote. Under the British law, so soon as a woman marries a British citizen, she herself becomes a British subject. She should by right have the vote as have other women who are citizens of Canada.
One other point has, perhaps, been lost sight of. Under the law, when a man of foreign origin becomes naturalized, the minor children of that man also become British subjects, and in the past, on attaining the proper age, they have been allowed to vote. Under the law as it now stands, even those men who, perhaps, for many years have been voting, are put to the necessity of appearing before a judge and obtaining a voting certificate. That is wrong; it is an indignity to those people; it is not fair. Practically the only privilege that goes with British citizenship is the right of the ballot, and this Government should not place itself in the position of giving citizenship with one hand and taking away the greatest privilege of citizenship with the other. For that reason, I move that the following clause be added to the Bill as clause 22 thereof:
22. "Sulbsection (2) of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter forty-six of the Statutes of 1920, is hereby repealed."


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :: I take it from the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Euler) that the intention of the amendment is to make provision by which any woman, it matters not from where she comes, who marries a British subject, shall at the moment be entitled to the franchise

in Canada. Am I right in my interpretation of the hon. gentleman's proposition?


William Daum Euler: If she fulfils the other conditions.


Donald Nicholson: Under
that condition the native of an enemy country, who has been in Canada long enough to become a British citizen, who returns to the country of his origin, who marries a citizen of that country and who immediately returns to Canada, will automatically create a new elector in this country. If we take the ground that a woman gets the franchise merely by right of her husband having the franchise, there might be something in what the hon. member says; but I think all will agree that when we granted the franchise to women, we felt that we were giving the franchise to an independent body of electors who would be themselves responsible for the position that they took when they cast ballots, who would themselves decide which side of the question they were going to vote on. I do not think my hon. friend would argue that a woman, coming into this country from Eastern or Central Europe, one of the enemy countries, if you will, or for that matter, any other country, who has no idea whatever of what the ideals of Canadian citizenship are, who has never had an opportunity of understanding what they are, who simply becomes the wife of a man who, perhaps, was born in Canada and who understands them, automatically, by reason of her marriage, becomes a British citizen entitled to the franchise in Canada.


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend say the same thing of a Mexican woman who marries a Canadian citizen, a British subject? Should she be entitled to vote? She is, under the Act, and so is a negress from the West Indies, but a woman from France, Belgium, Italy or Germany is not.


Donald Nicholson: My personal opinion would be, if the hon. member wants that, that no man or woman, who comes from any country, the ideals of whose citizenship are wholly different from or opposed to the ideals of Canadian citizenship, is competent to exercise the franchise in this country, until he or she has lived here long enough to understand something of what Canadian citizenship means. There is in the Act a provision that makes a difference for citizens of North American countries because it is recognized that people born on the North American continent have ideals largely the same as ours.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it because they are born on this continent that they have similar ideals?


Donald Nicholson: Because they are trained here, because they are educated here, because they live under conditions similar to those that we have. That cannot be said of citizens of Eastern and Central Europe. I think my hon. friends will agree with that, and I will not labour the point. My position is simply this: I am wholly opposed to the idea behind the suggestion that, merely because a woman, coming from an enemy country or, for that matter, a friendly country, whose ideals are wholly different from ours, marries a man who is entitled to the franchise in Canada, she shall receive the franchise. In the first place, such a proposition is a direct contradiction of everything underlying the granting of the franchise to women. If a woman is to vote simply because her husband has a vote, you are simply giving the man two votes; you are not setting up an independent body of electors, and that was the idea behind the whole question of granting the franchise to women. At this time, during the years following the war, during 1920 and 1921, large numbers of men from the newer parts of Canada are going back to the countries of their origin; a very large number of them will return with their wives, newly married. These men may have been living in Canada for many years; they may know something of Canadian citizenship; but it cannot be argued that, because of that fact, their wives know something of Canadian citizenship. Their wives, if they receive the franchise, will be, in political affairs, mere automatons registering the opinions of their husbands. I do not think the hori. gentleman can offer anything in the nature of a sound argument for the granting of the franchise to a woman solely because her husband has the franchise.


Levi Thomson: The arguments of my hon. friend may be very convincing to himself, but I am sure they are not convincing to any one who has given the subject any consideration at all. He deals entirely with an exceptional case and there is no reason why the exceptional case which he suggests should not go before a judge, get a certificate
5 p.m. and vote. The only difference is that the applicant is put to some trouble. He must surely see that the exceptional case which he suggests is not touched by this at all. Another exceptional

case is put up to him, but he ignores it entirely. Is a woman coming from France, who is not permitted to vote under this legislation, any worse than a woman coming under similar conditions from Mexico? My hon. friend does not care to deal with that. That is exactly the position of the Act as it stands at present. That is what he is defending. He puts up an exceptional case, and the Act does not touch the exceptional case at all because the woman to whom he objects to give the franchise can vote under this Act. All that my hon. friend (Mr. Euler) is asking for is that a woman should not he put to unreasonable trouble, and I think he is right in his contention. I do not think the circumstances in his constituency are as had as they are in others. I know, in many parts of the West, this will simply mean shutting out from voting women who have lived in the West for the last thirty or forty years and who have become thoroughly good Canadian citizens.


Donald Nicholson: Can
these women not go before the judge and qualify the same as their husbands?


Levi Thomson: Certainly, and so can people coming from alien enemy countries. Don't shut these people out at all; if they want to go before the judge, let them go. I think that you will find that the bigger proportion of the crooks who want to do some harm to the country-Reds, if you like, thorough Bolshevists, who want to upset the instir tutions of this country-will go to the judge and get the right to vote, while the honest, hard-working woman who thinks of her home, and is a good citizen, will not go as a rule. That will be the effect of the law as it stands now.


Samuel William Jacobs: or less intelligent, cannot possibly vote against the resolution of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) without having to explain to their electors and the country at large their reasons for doing so.


Donald Nicholson: I am
ready to admit my denseness, but I must nevertheless say that what I have heard from my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) and my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has not converted me, but rather has it convinced me that I was right in the first place. As to what my hon. friend has said with regard to women from Mexico, if he wants my personal opinion, I am opposed to giving the franchise automatically to a man or woman from any country, I care not which, who does not understand something of the ideals of Canadian citizenship. If the provision in the Act is wrong that makes it possible for a Mexican woman to have that right, I would hold up both hands for amending the law and making it impossible for her to have that right.


Samuel William Jacobs: Wherein do the ideals of French citizenship differ from those of Canadian citizenship?


Donald Nicholson: I do not know that they differ at all, but one thing I know, and that is that the language of the average French citizen is different from the language of many Canadian citizens.


Samuel William Jacobs: French is an official
language in this country, and in this House.


Donald Nicholson: I appreciate fully what is in my hon. friend's mind. I know we have a dual language system, and I have no objection to it in any sense whatever. But that does not answer the argument at all. The whole argument in favour of granting the franchise to women because their husbands have the franchise is based on the supposition that the woman automatically becomes a British subject because her husband is. Now, becoming a British subject does not carry with it the right of the franchise; there is no question about that.


Samuel William Jacobs: It should.


Donald Nicholson: But it does not. What underlies this whole question is simply this:	When the franchise
was granted to women I think it was recognized by those who advocated it that the women were going to be an independent body of electors, exercising their own judg-

ment and having their own opinions, and not simply following the opinions and judgments of their husbands. My hon. friend says that because a man goes before a judge and takes the oath of allegiance and becomes a British subject, he can then marry any woman he pleases and she automatically becomes an elector.


Samuel William Jacobs: She should not have to
go before the court; that is onr objection.


Donald Nicholson: She should have to go; there is no reason why she should not qualify the same as a man. If it is necessary for a man to undertake certain obligations and possess certain qualifications in order to become an elector in this country, it is necessary that the woman who is exercising the same franchise and has equal privileges and responsibilities should be in identically the same position as the man, and that is what the Act calls for.


Mr. CRERAR:: When my hon. friend
from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) brought this matter before the House a year ago, when the Franchise Act was under discussion, I supported the position he took then, and I am very glad to support it again to-day notwithstanding the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson).
There may be something said for this position: that the woman coming to Canada in the future and marrying a Canadian citizen should be required by personal naturalization to qualify for the right of exercising the franchise, but there is absolutely no defence for the position of affairs resulting from the existing section in the Act which my hon. friend from North Waterloo wishes to have repealed. We have, not single isolated cases, not scores, not hundreds, not thousands, but tens of thousands of cases in this country, of women who have been living in Canada, some of them for as long as fifty years, who are disqualified under this section from voting until they have secured, often with very great difficulty, the necessary certificate from a judge.


Donald Nicholson: Can these women not go before a judge and get the right to become elected?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Why should they, have to do that?


Donald Nicholson: Why should a man have to do it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He does not have to go before the judge.


Donald Nicholson: He has to go before the judge to he naturalized.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let me cite an illustration. An American citizen, a person who owed allegiance to the United States, came to Canada, say, in 1900, bringing with him his wife. He qualified in due time as a British subject, and secured the right to exercise the franchise. By that very act his wife has always been recognized in Canada, up to the present time, as a British subject. There is no question as to his right to vote, because he has qualified. Now, according to this Act, his wife must go through all this formality-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Pardon me; it is one of the anomalies of the Bill that it does not apply to a woman born in America; I am taking the wrong case. But let us take the case of a French woman or an Icelandic woman," or a Norwegian, or a Swedish woman-and we have thousands of these people in the country. These women have to go personally before a judge and comply with all this formality in order to be able to exercise the franchise.


Donald Nicholson: So has the man.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. The man has been a British subject and his wife has been recognized as a British subject in this country for years, but there is a discrimination against the woman, in this section of the Act, that should not exist. As my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), and my hon. friend from Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Thomson), pointed out, a Mexican woman coming to Canada is not under the disability that has been placed upon the French woman or any of the others I have mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: Mexican women do not come, as a matter of fact.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They may not, but they can, as a matter of law, and my hon. friend knows they can. It is not an argument to say that they do not, for the law expressly provides that they can come.


Samuel William Jacobs: And so can a coloured woman from Georgetown.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. Such a woman can marry a Canadian citizen and by that fact she is entitled to the franchise without going through this formality. Why place this discrimination on these other women? There are thousands of Icelandic women in Western Canada, born in Iceland, some as
long as fifty or so years ago. They have been living here, claiming and exercising all the rights of British citizenship, and yet, under this provision, they are not qualified to vote, while their husbands may have been qualified for a generation. That is not a desirable condition of affairs. If the minister in charge of the Bill drew the line at the present time and said that henceforth every alien woman coming to Canada, whether from the United States, from Mexico, Iceland, Germany, Russia, or anywhere else, must personally naturalize and qualify for the franchise, something could be said to support that position. But this discrimination should not be continued, and I suggest to my hon. friend that he might very well settle the matter in that way, which, I believe, would be entirely acceptable to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). What is complained of is the disability placed under this section upon women who have been in Canada for perhaps two generations. That is wrong and should be remedied, and I think my hon. friend from North Waterloo has stated in very reasonable terms a perfectly fair proposition to the Committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question which I should like to have answered in connection with this subject is, how a woman is to go before a judge if there is no judge before whom to go. That is the real problem presented by the Act as it stands at the present time. In many constituencies there are only three or four judicial centres, and in order for a large majority of women electors to become entitled to vote under the law, they have to go some ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, and in some cases, one hundred miles, to obtain the voting certificate. That is a physical impossibility, and very costly in the case of a large number of citizens. That is a feature of the Act that requires to be looked into. I made the suggestion earlier, in regard to another section of the Act, that the Committee on Privileges and Elections might be asked to consider one or two of these features of the Aet, and report upon them to the House before the close of the session. I should like the minister to consider that suggestion in regard to this amendment; if he cannot accept the amendment outright, the Committee on Privileges and Elections might look into this particular matter in view of the injustice which it occasions to thousands of women electors who are about to exercise the franchise now for the first time. Un-

fortunately, there is not in Parliament any woman to voice the women's point of view on this disability as women see it. Happily, however, I happen to have here an article which has been written by a woman who has given careful study to this particular section of the Act, and which presents in a manner that I think will appeal to hon. members, the real nature of the difficulty involved in the section as it stands, and the great injustice which it does not to hundreds but to thousands of women who are British subjects in this country. The article in question appears in the Manitoba Free Press of May 2, and is written by Miss Mary P. McCallum, assistant secretary to the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I shall not read the whole article, but the part that relates to the point brought up by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, where he spoke of the inconvenience to which numbers of electors are put, and the unnecessary trouble which is entailed upon them in consequence of this section. The article says:
The most serious difficulty is that of the inaccessibility of judges to most rural residents in the prairie provinces. There are not more than one or two judicial centres in each federal riding. In one at least, Last Mountain, there is no court centre. Each judge has an itinerary of three or four places in his judicial district where he holds district court once or twice a year. The court sits at these points usually for not more than a day. The majority of persons who require these certificates reside scores of miles from any place where the judge is scheduled to hold court. Railways are not convenient which may require an awkward change of trains, long delays, hotel expense, etc.
Hon. members will see from that statement that women under the Act as it stands now have to know, first of all, the one day of the year on which a judge may be at a particular centre, and then may have to travel hundreds of miles in order to get the voting certificate. I am sure that if hon. members appreciated the real nature of the working of this section of the Act, they would not willingly inflict this injustice on a large number of British subjects. Take a concrete instance, which is the next point mentioned in the article, of the by-election which will be held in Medicine Hat in the near future. Here is the exact statement as to how the Act will operate in connection with this one byelection :
This may be illustrated by taking the case of Medicine Hat. There is to be a by-election there some time this summer to fill the vacancy created by the death of the late Hon. A. L. Sifton. There are parts of three judicial districts in Medicine Hat, but in all, the judge holds court at only five points in the entire

riding, which is 192 miles long and 66 miles wide. Three railways run east and west across the constituency. A woman at Iddesleigh at the western edge of the riding on the Empress-Bassano branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, enquired where she must go for her "voting certificate". She may go to Empress, 118 miles away, on June 14, when the district court sits, or to Calgary, 138 miles away; or to Medicine Hat, 148 miles distant, changing trains in either of the latter two cases. In these times the cost in money and time is prohibitory and amounts to disfranchisement.
Compared to McKenzie or Humboldt or Victoria constituencies, Medicine Hat cannot be said to be largely a non-English constituency but the disfranchisement, in Medicine Hat is not inconsiderable.
Taking the case of women only, according to the census of 1916 there were 3,246 females in the electoral riding of Medicine Hat who were not British born. According to the same census three-fifths of them would be of voting age. This leaves about 2,000 women born in foreign countries and of voting age. In Alberta 18 per cent of the people in 1916 were born in the United States. This percentage, applied to the women in this constituency leaves something over 1,500 women of foreign birth outside the Continent of North America who must travel to one of these five points and obtain their "voting certificate" to enable them to vote in the by-election this coming spring or summer.
Now there is the case of just one constituency with respect to the pending byelections, and what is true of that constituency is more or less true of every constituency in the Canadian west, and is true in a large measure of constituencies in other parts of Canada as well. If these facts are correct-and I challenge the minister to dispute them at all-it will be apparent that this Act, instead of being an Act to enfranchise women voters, is going to disfranchise thousands of British citizens in this country. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the writer of this article concludes with the following paragraph:
The Government may deny the disfranchising effect of the Elections Act on technicality. But it disfranchises on a scale not approached by the War Time Elections Act. That Act affected the persons of enemy alien extraction, but it did not touch the Dane, or the Frenchman, or the Hollander, or the persons of any other friendly foreign country. Now, it says to all persons of foreign birth, who have been naturalized by operation of law, execpt those bom in the United States, no matter whether they have voted in this country for the last thirty or forty years, that they are no longer British subjects and may not vote until they produce evidence by a most roundabout and inconvenient method, that they are qualified to vote. Their thinking process in their adopted English is likely to get a very stubborn hold of one fact, namely, that they are disfranchised. Professions of lofty motives on the part of the Government are likely to excite still more their resentment and not to interest or mollify them at all. Unless something is done soon to re-establish their pre-war confidence in Canadian men and Canadian institutions the thin edge of the wedge of disruption already will have been driven into

the life of Western Canada. With absolute power virtually to disfranchise thousands of persons, does it look as if the next election is to be the free and unbiased opinion of the whole people of Canada upon the issues engaging the Government of the country?
I contend that that statement, which is from a woman's point of view on a matter which affects the women voters of this country, is entitled to the most careful consideration of this House. I think, on the face of it, it clearly discloses the truth of the statement that the Act, as it stands, disfranchises thousands of British subjects; and I would therefore repeat, in order that the matter may be dealt with in as thoughtful and careful a way as possible, that I think the minister would be well advised if he would allow the Committee on Privileges and Elections to take this representation, by a woman of this country, on behalf of the women of Canada, and consider this section of the Act in relation to these representations, and see if it is not possible to make some amendment which will serve the purpose which is most needed. May I point out this fact:	If it is not
possible for the minister to see his way to amending the Act, so as to prevent it being necessary for women to travel these hundreds of miles on one particular day to get a voting certificate, perhaps the law can be amended in a way that will fix a certain date by which judges would be required by itinerary to visit the different parts of these constituencies so as to give the voters there ,a chance to obtain their voting certificates. I think the Government should seek to meet the people, rather than that the people should be obliged to run after some officer of the Government in order to obtain what is the just and right privilege of every British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: This question comes up before the committee rather irregularly because it forms no part of the Bill under discussion; but the leader of the Opposition intimated on the second reading of he Bill that he would like permission for he discussion of one or two amendments which were not incorporated in the measure, and for the purpose of discussion we readily agreed. However, I had not at that time any idea that this question which was so thoroughly discussed eleven months ago, was going to be re-introduced into the House again to-day. I know of no clause in the Franchise Act of last session which occupied quite as much time as the question under discussion to-day. After the most prolonged consideration
and discussion, eleven months ago, this House adopted a certain course, and I do not think that in the meantime anything has transpired to cause it to change its opinion. However, I have received a little light on the subject this afternoon from my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition -a suggestion which was not before us when the clause was considered last year- and that is that something might be done in the way of asking judges, or procuring judges, to go round the various country districts a little more than they have done in the past. This, however, must be kept clearly in mind: There have been eleven full months now during which these women could have obtained these certificates. Very few of them, I understand, have made application. They take little or no interest in the matter. They have not shown enough interest in the question to go and apply for certificates, except in very few instances-not in the West, but in the thickly populated districts in the East. Now, I can well understand that in certain of the more remote constituencies there will be some degree of inconvenience to some people. We knew that last year, we discussed it last year, and the view of the House at that time was, that notwithstanding some slight inconvenience with which a limited number of people would have to put up, the principle was nevertheless a sound one; and if it is a good principle to apply it to people coming to this country in the future, as is suggested by my hon. friend the leader of the Agrarian group (Mr. Crerar), it would be just as sound a principle to apply it to those already here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: If we are going to
include all those who come in the future and require with respect to them that they shall apply to a judge, why draw a distinction between them and those who are here? Those who are here have never voted in Canada, those who are coming in future have never voted, and if one class is to be placed at some disadvantage and inconvenience so should the other class. But the inconvenience has been very much magnified here and in the matter which has been read. In the vast majority of cases there is no inconvenience at all. These people have not regarded the sacred right of the franchise very highly because, even in the county of my hon. friend (Mr. Euler) the county of Waterloo, little advantage has been taken, if any, of the

permission to obtain these certificates. Under that state of affairs I submit there is no grievance and there are no hardships; but I do not think it would be improper to suggest that some measure might be framed, particularly with respect to the more remote constituencies, whereby, within the next twelve or fifteen months, say, judges should make periodical visits to the more remote sections in order to give every facility for obtaining these certificates. However, I do not think that is a ground for amending the Dominion Elections Law. I think that matter is well worth consideration, but not in connection with this Bill-that would be in connection with the Judges Act or some other Act; and I shall have to ask the committee to vote down the amendment of my hon. friend from North Waterloo.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot
agree with my hon. friend that there is anything irregular in the amendment that is proposed. The measure before us is a Bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act. It is perfectly true that the minister has put in a number of clauses of his own, but there is nothing to preclude any hon. member-


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have not put in any clause of my own, not one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman says he has not put in any clause of his own. He must accept responsibility for the clauses that are in the Bill, and I am speaking now entirely of his responsibility for the measure. The minister, as I have said, has a number of clauses in the Bill which he has presented to the House. It is the right and privilege of any member of the House to add to these clauses-to suggest additions, or amendments. That is all we are doing-we are suggesting amendments to the law, amendments based on an experience that the House did not have when the measure was before it the last time. Now my hon. friend says that the hardships in regard to this particular phase of the Act have been very much exaggerated.
I ask my hon. friend, will he challenge a single statement in what I have read? Will he say that a single word of Miss McCallum's article is incorrect? Unless he is prepared to say that this article is not expressing the truth with regard to the distances these women have to travel, the number of times these courts are held, and the number of judges holding these courts,
[Mr. Guthrie. 3	.
I will have to accept the article as correct. My hon. friend said that women had not shown very much interest in this matter and that very few had registered. Well, he knows, as any other member knows, that the laws as passed by Parliament are not known to the electorate within a month or tiyo, or even a year or two, and that in many cases laws such as these affecting particularly the rights of persons of foreign origin are not likely ever to be heard of by them. That is not through any fault of theirs, it is their misfortune. They cannot keep themselves informed of all legislation. We know as a positive fact that probably not more than one woman out of five hundred or even out of a thousand who would be affected by this law would ever know of it from the press or from the records of Parliament, but would have to gain such knowledge through something which persons connected with the candidate or the party organization might tell her. In large constituencies, whether in rural areas or crowded cities, it is an impossible thing to expect that individuals will go about informing different persons who are entitled to naturalization by operation of law that they must appear before a judge and obtain a certificate. When we have that condition of affairs, it seems to me, it is the duty of Parliament to provide a means for what is an obvious necessity. My hon. friend says that he does not think this is a reason for amending the law. I must thank him for intimating that he sees something in the suggestion that some method should be arranged whereby judges can be brought a little nearer those who w-ould have to apply for voting certificates. But I submit that it is proper that any changes of this kind should not be a matter of discretion or chance.


Hugh Guthrie: The provinces could
regulate that. They fix the places for the holding of the courts, and they could spread them out for this purpose. '


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This will not be a court. This being Dominion election machinery, it would have to be expressed in some enactment by the Federal Government before the province would act on it.


Hugh Guthrie: No, we have given jurisdiction to all those judges. We do not fix the places where they hold their courts; that is done by the provinces; and if there is such a grievance in these remote districts as to make it necessary to designate more places where the judges shall hold

Sill
court, the provincial authorities could act in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the Government of each province may direct the judges for the purpose of this Act to appear at different-


Hugh Guthrie: No, for the purposes of holding court. Each judge, no matter where he is in his own district, can grant these certificates. Now, if the provincial authorities say that a judge shall hold court at this, that and the other point, within the next six, eight, or twelve months, that will give the people of those remote districts an opportunity to get certificates,- if there is a real grievance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend knows that the provinces would not likely authorize or direct a judge to hold court simply for the sake of holding court.
I want to find out if my hon. friend means that a province might direct judges to visit different centres for the purpose of permitting persons to appear before them to get voting certificates, and whether it would be within its jurisdiction in instructing the judges to act accordingly?


Hugh Guthrie: No. They could direct the judges to hold court at A, B, C and D for all judicial purposes; that would be sufficient.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend knows, better perhaps than any one else in the House, that that is not going to be done by any province where they have only two or three customary centres.


Hugh Guthrie: We are paying for it; it does not cost the province anything. If there is a real grievance-something that has not been magnified in this House; and I maintain it has been-in these remote parts, all the local government has to do is to designate certain convenient point for the judges to hold their courts, and the judges are bound to go. We pay them their salaries and travelling expenses. There the people can appear and get the certificates that they are entitled to. That gets over the incopevnience; and it is the only thing wrong with the Act, if it is a grievance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To make this perfectly clear, would the attorney general of Alberta, for instance, be justified, with' the support of his government, in directing that the judges in that province should
hold court this next year, say, in forty different centres in each constituency?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, each province has power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He would be acting within his rights if he gave instructions for the judges to hold court for the electors to appear before them for this purpose?


Hugh Guthrie: For all purposes connected with their judicial functions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
attorney general have power to do that without enactment of the legislature?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not say he would without legislation. When I say "the provincial government" I mean the provincial power, which is the legislature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I
think my hon. friend, to be fair with the House, ought to make perfectly clear what is in the back of his mind. Before that step could be taken, which on the face of it is plausible enough, it would be necessary for each province to enact legislation establishing additional courts for all purposes. That is a step the provinces might very well hesitate to take. But I do think this Government ought, in connection with the administration of this Act, to put in a clause which would meet what I am sure my hon. friend sees now is an injustice that will not bear examination.


Mr CRERAR:: Did I understand the
minister to say that in any case the Federal Government would pay for the costs involved in holding these additional courts?


Hugh Guthrie: The Federal Government pays the travelling expenses and salaries of the judges.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but would they pay the hall rent and the other expenses?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course not. My hon. friend knows that.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not mean that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend knows very well. they do not do that. And this would mean, so far as the provinces are concerned, that if they were to establish the necessary number of courts to properly handle this work it would mean a great additional expense, and my hon. friend knows perfectly well they will not undertake it.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps my suggestion was too expensive.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would like to ask my hon. friend another question. I am not a lawyer and I-


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Thank God
therefor.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -am asking for enlightenment. I will illustrate my question in this way. An Icelander came to Canada say, forty years ago, with a son five years of age. In due course that son attained the age of twenty-one years. His father had qualified for the vote, and the son was thereby also qualified and exercised the vote for the past twenty years. Am I correct in interpreting the Act as it stands at present to this effect, that the son is now disfranchised unless he goes before a judge and gets a certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: Where was he born?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In Iceland.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, he has to get a certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the son would have to get a certificate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then, really this Act is not an enfranchising Act, it is a disfranchising Act.


Hugh Guthrie: No, he has to get a certificate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But although he has
exercised the vote for twenty years he is disfranchised.


Hugh Guthrie: There may be odd cases of that sort.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are not odd cases, there are thousands of them.


William Findlay Maclean: He was lucky.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am forced to the conclusion that the Government in adhering so rigidly to this unfair clause are simply .seeking to get some political advantage in disfranchising tens of thousands of people who are likely to vote against them, and who by all the rules of fairness are entitled to vote. This can be the only reason, and it will not commend itself to the fair judgment of the country.


Mr. HAY:: Before this matter comes to a vote I would like to say that I agree largely with what the member for Mar-

quette has said. We should consider this amendment seriously before we vote it down, because I am satisfied that it will work some hardship on people in Western Canada-the Icelandic people, and perhaps some people from other countries. In the case cited by the member for Marquette, as I understand it, a young Icelander who had been voting for a number of years would be disfranchised if he did not get a certificate of naturalization. Now, I think that would be unfair; the very fact that citizenship had been extended to the son through the naturalization of the father should entitle the son to the franchise. I am not going to argue that foreigners should be enfranchised simply because they have married British subjects, but I do say that men and women who have lived in Canada for a great number of years and who have already had the privilege of the franchise should not be disfranchised by this Act. I urge upon the Acting Solicitor General and the Government the necessity of carefully inquiring into this question before finally disposing of it. If that is not done, I would ask that the Government make provision for judges to sit at convenient points all over Canada in connection with this matter. This is particularly necessary if the lists to be revised are two years old, as would be the case in some provinces. I am satisfied that if this Bill becomes law in its present form it will work hardship upon hundreds of thousands of people in Western Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not quite agree with the principles enunciated, first by my hon. friend the Solicitor General and then by my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). The elementary right of a British citizen is his right to the franchise. The law of Canada as regards naturalization has been revised on several occasions, and it now is as perfect as it can be. Naturalized British subjects should not be prevented in any way from exercising the franchise, but by this legislation you are putting obstacles in the way of the exercise of the franchise by certain people. The leader of the Opposition has cited instances in which it would be impossible for a woman living in a remote part of Canada to reach a judge in order to get a certificate. It would be more British; it would be much fairer to give de pleno the franchise to the person who has been naturalized. My hon. friend from East Algoma is a stout

Britisher; he will not forget that the question of the franchise has always played a great part in the history of the Empire of which we are all so proud. He will remember that war was declared on South Africa some twenty years ago because the Uitlanders-British subjects- in the Transvaal were denied the right of the franchise by President Kruger, and that on that occasion, a resolution was adopted by this House joining hands with the Mother Country. There is an object lesson for my hon. friends; and if they are true to their ideals,' as I have no doubt they are, they should give the people a fair chance to exercise their right to vote. The hon. member for Algoma has a queer notion as regards female suffrage. He seems to think that by granting woman suffrage we have created a special class of voters. Mr. Chairman, at any election to take place hereafter, there will be no distinction between the female and the male electors; they both belong to one class of citizens-Canadians, exercising their right to vote.


Donald Nicholson: Then if
they are both in the same position why should we not place them in the same position with regard to the securing of the right to the franchise?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That point has already been elucidated. I do not think my hon. friend is putting the question as it should be put before the committee. I am taking exception to the obstacles put in the way of the woman who is a British subject because of her marriage to a British subject. Parliament has granted to that woman the right to the franchise; yet under this proposed legislation, unless she goes a long distance and obtains a certificate you prevent her from reaching the polls. Let us be British; let us be fair; let us be tolerant in the administration of the Elections Act. Remember that it is the elementary right of every British citizen to exercise the franchise. In a country like Canada no such barriers should be put up against the exercise of the franchise.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the committee would not make a mistake if they referred this question back to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for reconsideration.


Hugh Guthrie: It would hold up the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Well,
I still say that it would be worth while to send it back.


William Daum Euler: When I submitted the
motion which I made I had hoped to appeal to the ordinary sense and fairness of members of the committee. I am still under the impression that the committee is not really seized of the full significance of that which we are debating this afternoon. The hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson) gave an extreme case. I am quite in agreement with him that it would not be right and proper, as a general thing, to give the franchise to a woman of any foreign country, who had become a British subject by virtue of, her marriage with a Canadian citizen a few months ago. She comes with him to this country; the hon. member states that under this amendment she would be entitled to vote. That that should be objected to sounds quite reasonable to me. A case like that, however, would not occur in more than one instance out of a thousand, and for my part I would be quite prepared to support some suggestion that would eliminate that sort of thing. If the Acting Solicitor General could bring in an amendment to the Act, whereby women of that class would have to go through the usual period of residence in this country, five years if you like, before they would be entitled to vote, I think he would be on fair ground. The hon. member for Algoma East also stated that he thought these women should be placed on exactly the same basis as the men and go through all the requirements. Very well, then, I will put this question to him:	If men have to
become actually naturalized, to become possessed of naturalization certificates, why has a married woman not the power to obtain the same thing? To-day, under the new Naturalization Act which was passed last session, a married woman has not the power to obtain personal naturalization. That discriminates unfairly against married women. I say that merely by the way, and I think the Naturalization Act should be corrected in that regard.
We have in Waterloo county, as in the West, women of foreign birth who have lived in this country for thirty or forty years, who are Canadians, who have sons who have voted repeatedly in this country, who have daughters who will be permitted to vote. While I do not wish to make any appeal whatever to sentiment-it is, perhaps, made too frequently in this way- it is a fact that, under the law as it exists

now, if this amendment is not accepted, there will be women, who have lived in this country for thirty or forty years and who had sons in the war, who will be put to the necessity of appearing before a judge before they can vote. I want to put this question to every member of the committee, whether a woman of that kind-and I am not exaggerating when I say that there are literally hundreds and thousands of them in this country-is not entitled to at least the same privileges as a woman receives who came here five or six years ago from the United States or from some other North American country. There can be only one reply.
The minister stated a few moments ago that no injustice is done to these men who are obliged to get a certificate, because they have not voted before. I desire to correct him in that regard. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has already referred to the matter. There are meft who came here, as boys with their fathers, from Austria or Germany, whose fathers were naturalized, and under the law as it now stands those men who were permitted to vote even during the war, will no longer be permitted to vote unless the law is changed.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to: Progress reported.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


THE BUDGET
Hon.   S@: That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
He said: Mr. Speaker, following the usual practice I now take advantage of this motion for the purpose of introducing the annual Budget.
The past year has been a difficult and trying one for business practically the world over, and Canada has suffered in common with other nations from the commercial and economic conditions obtaining. The year has been a year of deflation, and deflation is always difficult. Dur-

ing the first portion of the year the price of commodities, instead of declining after the cessation of hostilities, as was generally expected, sharply rose. Extravagant and luxurious buying was common, and the cost of living in Canada unreasonable.
As a corrective measure, as well as for the purposes of revenue, the taxes of last year, commonly known as Luxury Taxes, were imposed. The object of these taxes was stated in the Budget speech as follows:-
Not only is more revenue necessary but extravagant and luxurious expenditure ought to be checked. Just so long as expenditure on nonessentials and extravagant expenditure continues, just so much longer will the drop in the value of essentials be postponed. On those having income more than necessary for properly maintaining themselves and families, there rests a special duty of saving whenever possible and in this manner adding to the available financial resources for development and for industrial undertakings.
Extravagant buying was slowly but surely checked, and in November declines in commodity prices, both manufacturers' and wholesale, were well marked. The buying public which had previously been so well accustomed to rising markets and then bought freely in the fear that prices would be higher, were convinced that the prices of commodities were on the downward trend, and instead of buying in advance of their needs, stopped purchasing as much as possible in the expectation that prices would continue to fall.
But not only were the taxes designed to check wild spending on the part of the public, they were also calculated to cheek unnecessary purchases by the trader, so that his inventories might be all the smaller when the inevitable drop in commodities came, and so that the lower level might be reached, in more easy stages and with little goods on hand.
Having served these main purposes, the so-called Luxury Taxes were, with but trifling exceptions, abolished on the 18th day of December, 1920.
The year has been a trying one in many activities, but it is felt that the lower price levels have been reached, and that working on the sure foundation of lower costs, the conditions of our trade and commerce ought to steadily improve.
Trade
The year just closed gives a great total for Canadian trade. The previous year, notwithstanding that it was a year of rising prices and general activity in business, showed a total of imports and domestic exports of $2,304,008,267, as

against $2,429,288,757 for the year ended March 31, last.
This is a remarkable showing, more particularly in view of the fact that prices had materially declined during the last half of the year and that our heavy export of grain was made on the lower price level. These figures show an increase for the year of $125,280,490. If foreign merchandise brought into Canada r^nd exported be added, the respective totals become for the year ended March 31, 1920, $2,351,174,878, and for the year just closed $2,450,553,175.
For the purpose of comparison, it may be noted that the years at the end of the past two five-year periods, that is for 1916 and 1911, show a total trade of $1,287,117,229 and $741,745,318 respectively. The figures of the past year show great trade activity. Taking nine millions as the approximate population of Canada, and the calendar year as a uniform basis of comparison, it will be found that the aggregate foreign trade per capita in 1920 was $293.30 for Canada, and $127.78 for the United States.
The mere bulk of trade activities does not of necessity, however, show national prosperity. While, on the one hand, the nation may increase in wealth with a comparatively small total business, on the other hand, it is possible to become the poorer in increasing ratio to the amount of gross business done. The vital question is as to whether or not the business as a whole is profitable.
Canada has continued to be a large buyer. Our imports in the year have increased by the sum of $175,608,887, while, on the other hand, our domestic exports have dropped from those of last year by $50,328,397. If the export of foreign produce be included, the total decrease becomes $76,230,590. If mere size of trade was the whole criterion of national prosperity, Canada would indeed be prosperous, and the problems of industrial unemployment and dissatisfaction with farm results entirely non-existent. While it is perfectly true that Canada, relatively, is very much better off at the present moment than many other nations are, the fact nevertheless remains that conditions are not as we would have them.
It has also to be borne in mind that while our total exports are only $76,230,590 short of those of last year, they are $375,741,673 below the gross export peak reached in 1918.
The unfortunate part of our international balances is that with the United States. The unrevised figures for the year show
that our exports to that market amounted to $542,304,456 of domestic, and $18,379,342 of foreign produce, while our imports amounted to $856,593,470, resulting in an unfavourable trade balance between the two countries of $295,909,672. This large unfavourable balance, coupled with the largely increased invisible payments which have to be made to American holders of Canadian securities and investments, of necessity creates a heavy demand for New York exchange, resulting in a premium on New York funds. The real balance against Canada is also increased by the aggregate of the discount on Canadian money in New York, as the trade figures do not include the resultant increased cost to the Canadian purchaser.
If Canada is to continue to buy as much as she now does from the United States, she ought to sell a great deal more in that market. It is undoubtedly to her immediate interest that she should do so. The position of our trade with the United States, unfavourable as it is, is likely however to be made still more unfavourable. The Emergency Tariff, commonly known as the Ypung Bill, which has already been favourably considered by both Houses of the American Congress, calls for the imposition of taxes which would practically prohibit the importation of-in the chief part- Canadian agricultural commodities which amounted in volume during the past year to some $168,350,000. The measure is for but a six months' period, and the permanent Tariff Bill has not yet been brought down.
The legislation is treated as emergency legislation, and is pressed on the ground that the United States have a large surplus of these products, which their farmers are unable to sell, and that the American farmer is subject to unfair competition in the United States market as owing to the discount on Canadian currency the Canadian farmer receives just so many more Canadian dollars, just as useful to him in his own country as the American dollar is to the American farmer.
The underlying difficulty of the whole matter would appear to result from the condition of foreign exchanges and the difficulty of financing overseas sales. Under former conditions, exports of Canadian products, to a large extent, merely added to the exportable surplus of the United States a very profitable business for that country, while to-day, according to statements made in support of the emergency legislation, the stocks of American produce are large, and additions thereto by Cana-

dian imports merely add to the difficulties of the American producer, who cannot today profitably dispose of his own surplus. In other words, what in the past was profitable business for the United States is now regarded as unprofitable.
Our business with the United Kingdom continues to be satisfactory, although it is unaccompanied with favourable balances as great as in the past. Last year our exports to the Mother Country amounted to $495,960,118 while our imports amounted to $126,359,249, resulting in a favourable trade balance of $369,600,869. This year our exports have fallen to $314,226,348, while our imports from the Mother Country have grown to $213,930,946, reducing our favourable trade balance to $100,295,402. In view of the large holdings of Canadian securities in the United Kingdom, while exact figures are not available, the net balance would be much reduced if not indeed turned against us. The showing, however, is very much more satisfactory than that of our trade with the United States and the buyers of English goods have the additional satisfaction of knowing that their dollars were at a premium in the English market.
I have much pleasure in calling the attention of hon. members to the remarkable recovery and extension of British trade in Canada. Imports from the United Kingdom first reached the hundred million mark in 1911. In 1913 they were $138,741,736. As a result of the war, in 1919 the figures had dropped to $73,035,118. In 1920 the total was $126,359,249. The increase of this year over last-although last year's figures were greater than those of any previous year except 1913-is $87,571,697, or over 69 per cent. The sales by the Mother Country in Canada have by the prevailing rates of exchange been made the more easy in the same ratio as our sales to her have been rendered the more difficult. Our sales have also, by reason of the exercise of British Government control, been further restricted.
Revenue, 1920-21
The country's revenues have been well maintained. The revenue for the fiscal year when the accounts are finally closed will approximately reach $432,000,000, as against $349,746,334 for the year before. This marked increase, in a year of deflation, can only be regarded as satisfactory. The chief sources of revenue are as follows:

Customs	$163,000,000
Excise	 37,200,000
Post Office	 26,000,000
Business Profits War	Tax..	..	40,000,000
Income Tax	 46,500,000
Inland Revenue War	Tax..	..	79,050,000
Other War taxation	 2,355,000
Expenditure 1920-21
The estimated expenditure for the year amounts to $533,368,077 as against a total outlay provided by the Estimates of $613,225,411.
The total expenditure has been met without new loans, being covered entirely by current revenue and cash resources available at the close of last year. The amount of cash resources from the past year and applicable to 1921-22 will be relatively small. The figure cannot be definitely stated, as sundry expenditures and revenue for 1920-21 have yet to go through the books. I might say, at this juncture, that we expect to find that the available cash at the end of the year when the accounts are closed will amount to approximately $10,000,000.
In considering the consolidated fund expenditures, having regard to the country's pre-war activities, it will be found that these amount to some $141,000,000. Consolidated fund charges connected with and growing out of the war, such as increased interest, pensions, military records, Air Board, expenses of Land Settlement Board, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, etc., and such new services and expenses as cost of collection of war taxation, bonus to the Civil Service, aids granted for technical education and road building, etc., approximate $225,000,000. Other war expenses, including Soldiers' Land Settlement loans and demobilization, increase the total payments resulting from the war and new services to $277,000,000. Services similar to those provided for by the consolidated fund expenditure of $141,000,000 this year as referred to above cost in the year 1913-14 $127,384,472.
Of the expenditures, the total chargeable to consolidated fund is $362,600,000. Special expenditure, including capital of $36,972,000 and demobilization of $20,000,000 accounts for a further sum of $57,102,000. Then there are investments, classed as non-active for the time being, as
follows:
Canadian Northern Railway.. ..$48,611,077
Grand Trunk Railway	 26,520,000
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
"Rec. a/c"	 18,300,000
Grand Trunk Pacific Guaranteed [DOT]
Int	 3,500,000
Quebec Harbour Commissioners. 335,000

And, finally, disbursements for railway equipment of $16,400,000.
The revenues for the year exceed the ordinary expenses of the country, including all pensions and all current war charges, by $69,400,000 and exceed the sum total of the ordinary expenses, together with the regular charges to capital and war by $12,298,000.
Debt
As already stated, there have been no fresh borrowings. On the other hand, the debt has increased by the amount that the liquid surplus of the year before has been used, namely, $101,368,077. It should be noted that out of available cash, tax exempt bonds aggregating $89,228,300 have heen acquired and taken off the market. It is proposed to cancel them.
The result is that, having regard to the writting-down of assets which took place last year, the net debt now amounts to $2,350,236,700. An interesting observation may be made as to the increase in debt. In the period 1896 to and including 1914 the net additions to the debt totalled $77,499,417. As compared with this, during the period 1914 to date, if the writing-down of non-active assets had not taken place and if the bare war cost be deducted but resulting current expenses arising from the war such as for interest, pensions, etc, be nevertheless charged, the net debt to-day would stand at approximately $115,000,000 less than at March 31, 1914. The situation may be otherwise expressed by saying that notwithstanding the largely increased cost of Government, to the extent of this sum the country's war activities have been financed out of current revenue.
Over and above all this the charges to the consolidated fund of payments made on current war account from and including the year 1914-15 to 1920-21 amount to $553,732,120 and for new services and expenses $30,077,580, making a total of $583,809,700. The amounts by years are as follows:
	Due to War	New	
Burden	Services	Total1914-15	. . $ 2,843,238	$ 2,843,2381915-16	8,828,080	8,828,0801916-17	.. 25,956,437	$ 58,174	26,014,6111917-18	.. 44,134,890	108,196	44,243,0861918-19	. . 88,854,759	3,498,126	92,352,8851919-20	. . 170,722,951	13,139.084	183,862,0351920-21	. . 212,391,765	13,274,000	225,665,765Total	. $553,732,120	$30,077,580	$583,809,700The	net result is	that war	obligations
current and capital have been met and paid to the extent of $698,809,700.
Probable Revenue and Expenditure 1921-22
All indications point to a falling customs revenue and with the disarrangement of business consequent on imminent tariff legislation of the United States, it is difficult to accurately forecast the revenue for the coming year. The following Estimate-based on existing legislation-may
be given:
Customs	$135,000,000
Excise	 33,600,000
Post Olflce	 26,000,000
Interest on Investments	 19,000,000
Casual Revenue	 4,000,000
War Tax Revenue-
Inland Revenue	 72,000,000
Business Profits and Income Tax.	70,000,000
Miscellaneous War Tax Revenues	2,000,000
All other Revenues	 11,000,000

The main Estimates tabled call for a total expenditure of $582,062,698 and the supplementary for bonus to the service an additional $9,375,000. The policy of the Government is to pay at least all current expenses, including capital charges, out of current income. The following summary gives the details of these votes properly appropriated to their various objects:
Estimated Consolidated Fund Expenditure	$343,021,594
Estimated Capital Expenditure.. 27,459,127 Estimated Demobilization Expenditure	 7,777,380

Investments-Non-Active-
Canadian Northern Railway.. .. $ 50,000,000
Grand Trunk Railway	 89,687,633
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. .	26,000,000

Investments-Active-
Soldiers Settlement Board..	.. $ 32,000,000
Housing Loans	 13,310,000
Sinking Funds	 2,181,963

From the above it will be seen that $378,258,101 in the first instance ought to be raised out of current revenue. It is true that this amount includes capital expenditure for canals, public works, etc.-capital expenditure, which does add to the equipment and facilities of the country. Under the policy adopted this, however, ought to be met out of current revenue. It should be noted that this capital vote also includes $1,903,133 required for railroad equipment. It also includes $7,000,000 for deficits of the Canadian Government Railways proper which must be regarded as a current expense.


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
. Provision is made for non-active investments to the extent of $165,687,633 on account of railways, investments which at least for the time being will yield no return. To the full extent that provision is required for the payment of current liabilities, deficits and interest, that payment ought to be met out of current revenues. The vote, however, in part, covers ' maturing capital obligations. Railway capital obligations ought not to be paid out of current revenue at the present time but should be refunded.
Of the vote, the current liabilities of the Canadian Northern call for payment of $25,102,870 made up of stock additions, operating deficits and interest charges.
The Grand Trunk vote is required largely for old accounts and maturing capital obligations, as well as obligations owing the country. The old accounts will be taken into consideration in the arbitration proceedings as deduction from the compensation that may be payable. The company, however, ran last year at an actual deficit of some $6,500,000, apart from all Grand Trunk Pacific obligations. Part of this deficit is accounted for by back pay amounting to some $3,000,000. It would not be safe to regard the account, however, as one not requiring a substantial sum, possibly $6,000,000, for current deficits for the year.
Included in the Grand Trunk Pacific vote, apart entirely from expenditures which add to the value of the property, is $19,817,873. The position of this undertaking is such however that the whole vote of $26,000,000 ought to be raised out of current revenue, making a total current railway expenditure to be this year provided in cash of $57,102,870.
The resultant total to be raised is $435,360,971.
In addition, the other investments of $47,491,963 are active and revenue-producing and constitute a proper deduction from a gross debt.
It is obvious, however, that additional revenues ought to be provided.
Tariff
It is not proposed to put into effect now a general revision of the tariff schedules. While Canada must make her own tariff and while that tariff must be a tariff dictated in the interests of Canada and her people, it is not advisable that frequent changes should be made.
The tariff deals with international business and the proper interests of the

country can only be considered in the light of international business and the tariff laws of other countries. It is idle to attempt to disguise the fact that any proper Canadian tariff must have consideration to the settled tariff conditions obtaining in the United States. Of our total trade of the past year 57 per cent was with the United States. Of total imports of $1,240,125,056, those from our neighbour to the south were $856,593,470 or 69 per cent of the whole.
As already pointed out, temporary tariff legislation of the United States would place a barrier against our exports to that country amounting to no less than $168,000,000. Such or similar action made permanent, of necessity, would require a careful and thorough revision of the Canadian tariff for the purpose of ensuring the proper continuance of Canadian business -of ensuring employment and Canadian stability-a matter of gravest moment to all classes of our citizens, of moment to the farmer as well as to the industrial worker, of moment to the farmer because the home market, always of importance and value to him, would become in view of the action of the United States and of the difficulties of financing overseas sales, more important than ever.
An illustration of the value of the home market under past conditions may be given in connection with the dairy business. The production of butter in Canada for the year 1919 was 226,000,000 pounds and of this amount but 17,000,000 pounds were exported. On the question of profitable prices in the home market, it may be noted that last autumn when the Ottawa wholesaler paid 57 cents for butter and the Ottawa public were paying 59 cents and 60 cents a pound, the export price was 47 cents a pound. The home market is valueless without purchasing power and that purchasing power will diminish or largely disappear with the advance of industrial unemployment. Under the circumstances, having special regard to the fact that there ought not to be a general revision of the Canadian tariff now and another after the close of the United States Congress, no action will now be taken.
In indicating that regard must be had to United States tariff laws when framing the Canadian tariff, I do not desire to be understood as suggesting that the Canadian tariff should, in any way, of necessity follow the American customs rates. The underlying economic principles which apply to tariff necessities of creditor nations, as compared with debtor nations, are entirely different. Creditor nations

are not under the necessity oi. discharging money claims with an excess of visible exports over visible imports or by fresh borrowings. While it is not in the interest of debtor nations to increase money claims against them by an unfavorable balance of visible trade, in the case of the creditor nation it well may be that the only manner in which the creditor nation may receive payment on its investments is by creating money claims in favour of the debtor nation through an excess of visible imports over visible exports.
As a matter of fact, besides goods and commodities creditor nations export coupons, representing interest on borrowed money, while debtor nations import them, that is, pay them. It is impossible to accurately state the amount of coupons annually imported by Canada. In all probability $180,000,000 would not be an outside figure. Under such circumstances, Canada has to be considered as having an adverse balance of $180,000,000 before any consideration is given to the results of her visible import and export trade. On the other hand, a3 a great creditor nation, the United States, apart altogether from her visible imports and exports, has the advantage of a very large invisible export eredit, none the less real because unseen, under the heading of returns from investments. Canada like all other countries in process of development required and indeed still requires foreign capital and is of necessity a debtor nation.
Tariff Changes
Changes in the schedules, however, become necessary for the purpose of implementing the trade pact with the West India Islands which has been ratified by both Houses and assented to. A resolution will be submitted dealing with these.
Amendments to Customs Act
Changes ought to be made in the Customs Act with a view to securing a more efficient carrying out of the principle of the dumping provisions. Much of the unemployment at present existing, results from the importation into Canada of goods at prices below the cost of production. In so far as the public are concerned, little, if any, price advantage has accrued to them through these importations. Indeed, it could not well be expected that they should because these low costs cannot be looked upon as at all permanent and as a matter of fact they have been found to be temporary. It has been established that, after large shipments of
198J
goods have been made from a foreign market and entered at customs at a valuation justified by temporary quotations in that market, prices there have registered substantial increases. The result, however, is directly felt by the Canadian producer and worker. Goods ought to be valued for customs purposes, not at forced-sale prices, justified by temporary quotations to the foreign market, but having regard to the regular standard value in that market and to cost of production and a reasonable profit thereon.
A further change should also be made having regard to the valuation of goods imported from foreign countries whose currencies have greatly depreciated. Under the law, valuations are made in the currency of the country of export and this value has under customs ruling been adjusted to the basis of exchange prices. The increased cost of production in the foreign market does not, however, bear a direct inverse relation to the extent of the depreciation of the currency, more particularly so having regard to countries where currencies are depreciated to a greater extent than 50 per cent. It is therefore proposed to provide that any depreciation of a foreign currency greater than 50 per cent shall be disregarded and that the lowest valuation which can be made will be arrived at by a depreciation of 50 per cent. Where the rate of exchange is adverse to Canada, the value for duty will be computed at the rate of exchange existing at the date of the shipment of the goods. To put into effect these provisions, a Bill will be introduced providing for amendments to the Customs Act as follows:
Section forty of the said Customs Act is amended by adding- thereto the following clause,-"such value in no case to ibe lower than the wholesale price thereof at such time and place," and by adding thereto the following subsection :
(2) Provided that the value for duty of new or unused goods shall in no case be less than the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment direct to Canada, plus a reasonable profit thereon, and the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue shall be the sole judge of what shall constitute a reasonable profit in the circumstances."
Section fifty-nine of the said Customs Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
(6) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section, in computing the value for duty of the currency of an invoice, no reduction shall ibe allowed in excess of fifty per cent of the value of the standard or proclaimed currency of the country from whence the goods are invoiced to Canada, irrespective of the rate of exchange existing between such ooun-
[Stage Direction]
try and Canada on date of the shipment of the goods, and in respect of goods shipped to Canada from a country where the rate of exchange is adverse to Canada, the value for duty of the currency of the invoice shall be computed at the rate of exchange existing between such country and Canada at the date of the shipment of the goods.
Marking of Importations
Representations have from time to time been made to the effect that the goods of one country were being farmed off on the Canadian public as the goods of another country. Especially have representatives of British business urged that many goods were being sold as British goods, which either had not seen Great Britain or were merely collected in and forwarded from that country. In my judgment, immediate effect ought to he given to these representations. Not only has the British importation some right to protection from dishonest competition, but much more so the Canadian public have a right to know from whom they are buying. A resolution will, therefore, be moved to provide that all goods imported into Canada capable of being marked, stamped, branded or labelled without injury shall have indicated on them legibly in English or French the country of origin. This provision will come into force September 1, 1921.
Business Profits War Tax
The Business Profits Tak will be dropped. With present business conditions it would in any event become largely inoperative -excess profits generally speaking will not be found. This tax is one which is only s justifiable as an emergency measure in a time of ascending values and inflation and national stress. It is a tax which works harm to the general financial situation and business conditions in an ordinary period and more particularly in a period of business depression. The Act will not be reenacted.
Excise Taxes
Many complaints have been received from will be abolished. In lieu thereof, having particular regard to the necessities of revenue, duties will be levied on playing cards and wines. The duties on spirits will be increased from the present $3 per gallon customs duty and the $2 additional duty under the luxury taxes, to a straight $10 customs rate. Increase will also be made in the excise duties on spirits of local manufacture released for sale in Canada. The former differential of the excise duty as against the customs duty was 60 cents, a differential of 20 per cent. The excise rate will be increased to $9 a gallon.

Many complaints have been received from hospitals and the producers of proprietary medicines and pharmaceutical preparations who represent that the burden of taxation under the law, which is now being changed and which provides for a total tax of $5 per proof gallon, was unduly heavy. The hospitals in particular represent that they have had great difficulty in properly carrying on. It is proposed to grant a rebate of 99 per cent of the duties paid on spirits actually used for medicinal purposes in bona fide hospitals certified to as such by the Department of Public Health and subject to regulations to be promulgated by the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue for the purpose of ensuring that no abuses take place. Under appropriate regulations it is proposed in the case of patent and proprietary medicines and pharmaceutical preparations to reduce the tax to the rate of $2.40 per proof gallon. This is the rate which applied prior to the enactment of last year's luxury taxes.
Sales Tax
In addition to the foregoing new provisions, it is proposed to increase the rate of the sales tax. Many submissions have been received in favour of a sales or turnover tax. The principle of either a sales or turnover tax has been strongly advocated by many boards of trade and commercial bodies. The general turnover tax in particular has been strongly supported. This tax would call for the payment of a tax on every transaction taking place in the country. It would include
9 p.m. all sales by retailers. Theoretically a general turnover tax on commodities and services has much to commend it. In practical administration, though, in view of the fact that after careful survey it has been established that books are not kept in many retail stores, the cost of administration would be unduly great and difficulties of collection many.
Instead of extending the tax, it is proposed to confine its operation to the sales of manufacturers, wholesalers, jobbers and importers, and to continue a list of special exemptions which, broadly speaking, will cover foodstuffs in their natural state, initial sales of farm produce by the farmer of his own production, as well as the first products of the fisheries, mines and forests.
The 1 per cent and 2 per cent rates on domestic transactions will become 11 per cent and 8 per cent respectively, and the

present import rates will become 2i per cent and 4 per cent. The import rates thus become 1 per cent higher than the like domestic rates. The necessity for this lies in the fact that more than one sales tax is included in the finished article made in Canada, while the materials entering into the manufacture or production of the foreign article are not subject to any such tax.
Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have a great task before us. The world is sadly out of tune. May we help in restoring harmony? Trust and confidence are sadly lacking. Class interests are advanced with selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellow-men is weakened. Doubt of 'aie future is often voiced. And what is cne trouoie? The sun still shines-the rivers still sparkle-our lands are as great and fruitful as ever-our resources just as vast. Shall it be said that the work and sacrifice of the past few years were in vain? That we Canadians of to-day do not think that that Canada for whom so great a stream of heroic blood was shed-a Canada great enough to die for-is a country worth living for? Living for Canada! To do that means living for and helping our fellow Canadians, means the realization that no real advantage can be taken by this class at the expense of that-that the wrong of one works to the injury of all-that Canada requires honest, clear thinking and the abandonment of racial, class and political prejudice-that our task is worthy of the efforts of a united Canada and the best, unselfish, constant work of each and all of us. If we can but again renew faith the one in the other
and in our country, live for Canada and in the faith of our forefathers, the future holds no shadows for Canada.

[Stage Direction]
I beg to give notice that upon the House resolving itself into committee I shall move the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, by inserting the following section immediately after section 8 :
8a. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, goods, other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous or alcoholic liquors and articles specified in Schedule A of The West Indies Trade Agreement Act, the produce or manufacture of
British Honduras;
Bermuda;
the Bahamas;
Jamaica;
Turks and Caicos islands ;
the Leeward islands (Antigua, St. Christo-pher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin islands) ;
the Windward islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia) ;
Barbados;
Trinidad and Tobago; and
British Guiana
when imported direct therefrom shall not be subject at any time to more than fifty per centum of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the General Tariff under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
2i. Resolved, that Schedule A to the Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter 15 of the Acts of 1913, by chapter 26 of the Acts of 1914. and by chapter 5 of the Acts of 1914 (second session) be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 20, 21, 22, 23, 39b, 77a, 101, 101a, 103, 104, 110, 111, 113, 134, 135, 150, 151, 153, 156, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164 and 16-5, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of Customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duties be inserted in said Schedule A:

[Stage Direction]
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff.		
			Tariff.	Tariff.
20	Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liqour," not sweetened, in blocks or cakes, per	4 cents.	5 cents.	5 cents.21	Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liquor," sweetened, in blocks or cakes, not less than two pounds in weight, per pound	4$ cents.	51 cents.	51 cents.22	Preparations of cocoa or chocolate in powder form -	27$ p.c.	35 p.c.	35 p.c.23	Preparations of cocoa or chocolate, n.o.p., and confectionery, coated with or containing chocolate, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty, per pound	H cents.	1$ cents.	1$ cents.and	22J p.c.	35 p.c.	35 p.c.39b	Arrowroot, per pound	$ cent.	1$ cents.	1$ cents.77a	Cocoa beans, not roasted, crushed or ground, per one hundred pounds	Free.	SI. 50	SI. 5087a	Onions in their natural state	Free.	30 p.c.	30 p.c.101	Oranges and lemons	Free.	Free.	Free.101a	Shaddocks or grape fruit, per one hundred pounds....	50 cents.	SI. 00	$1.00
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.
				
101b	Limes	Free.	15 p.c.	15 p.c.103	Fruits preserved in brandy, or preserved in other spirits, and containing not more than forty per cent of proof spirit in the liquid contents thereof, per gallon	S2.50	$2.50	$2.50and	30 p.c.	30 p.c.	30 p.c.104	Fruits preserved in brandy, or preserved in other spirits, containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit in the liquid contents thereof, per gallon....	$10.00	$10.00	$10.00and	30 p.c.	30 p.c.	30 p.c.110	Socoanuts, n.o.p., per one hundred	50 cents.	$1.00	$1.00111	Cocoanuts, when imported from the place of growth, by ship, direct to a Canadian port, per one hundred.	Free.	75 cents.	75 cents.113	Cocoanut, desiccated, sweetened or not, per pound..	5 cents.	6 cents.	6 cents.134	A.11 sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars f whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item No. 135, when not exceeding eighty-eight degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds	$1.50	$2.00	$2.00when exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not exceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.52	$2.03	$2.03when exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceeding ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.54	$2.06	$2.06when exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding ninety-one degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.56	$2.08	$2.08when exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding ninety-two degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.59	$2.12	$2.12when exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceeding ninety-three degrees, per one hundred pounds...	$1.61	$2.15	$2.15when exceeding ninety-three degrees but not exceeding ninety-four degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.63	$2.18	$2.18when exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceeding ninety-five degrees, per one hundred pounds.. .	$1.65	$2.20	$2.20when exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding ninety-six degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.68	$2.24	$2.24when exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceeding ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds...	$1.70	$2.27	$2.27when exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceeding ninety-eight degrees per one hundred pounds,...	$1.72	$2.30	$2.30when exceeding ninety-eight degrees but not exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds... .	$1.79	$2.39	$2.39when exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	:	$1.79	$2.39	$2.39135	Provided that refined sugar shall be entitled to entry under the British Preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, that such refined sugar has been manufactured wholly from raw sugar produced in the British colonies and possessions, and not otherwise. Sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour when imported by a recognized sugar refiner, for refining purposes only, under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; and sugar n.o.p., not above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, sugar drainings or pumpings drained in transit, melado or concentrated melado, tank bottoms, sugar concrete, and molasses testing over fifty-six degrees and not exceeding seventy-six degrees, when not exceeding seventy-six degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds	* 70 cents	$1-10080	$1-16080when exceeding seventy-six degrees but not exceeding seventy-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds	70-75 cents	$1-18366	$1-18366when exceeding seventy-seven degrees but not exceeding seventy-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds	71-5 cents	$1-20652	$1-20652when exceeding seventy-eight degrees but not exceeding seventy-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	72-25 cents	$1-22938	$1-22938when exceeding seventy-nine degrees but not exceeding eighty degrees, per one hundred pounds....	' 73 cents	$1-25224	$1-25224w'hen exceeding eighty degrees but not exceeding eighty-one degrees, per one hundred pounds	73-75 cents	$1-27510	$1-27510when exceeding eighty-one degrees but not exceeding eighty-two degrees, per one hundred pounds	74-5 cents	$1-29796	$1-29796
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff.	Intermediate Tariff.	General Tariff.
				
	when exceeding eighty-two degrees but not exceeding eighty-three degrees, per one hundred			$1-32082
pounds	
when exceeding eighty-three degrees but not ex-	75'25 cents	$1-32082	ceeding eighty-four degrees, per one hundred pounds when exceeding eighty-four degrees but not ex-	76 cents	$1-34560	$1-34560ceeding eighty-five degrees, per one hundred pounds when exceeding eighty-five degrees but not ex-	76-75 cents	$1-37038	$1-37038ceeding eighty-six degrees, per one hundred pounds, when exceeding eighty-six degrees but not exceeding	77-5 cents	$1-39516	$1-39516eighty-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding eighty-seven degrees but not exceeding eighty-eight degrees, per one hundred	78-25 cents	$1-41994	$1-41994pounds	
when exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not ex-	79 cents	$1-44664	$1-44664ceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds when exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not ex-	79-75 cents	$1-47334	$1-47334ceeding ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds.... when exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding	80-5 cents	$1-50388	$1-50388ninety-one degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding	81 '25 cents	$1-53442	$1-53442ninety-two degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceeding	82 cents	$1-56496	$1-56496ninety-three degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-three degrees but not ex-	82-75 cents	$1-59550	$1-59550ceeding ninety-four degrees, per one hundred pounds when exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceeding	83-5 cents	$1-62604	$1-62604ninety-five degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding	84-25 cents	$1-65658	$1-65658ninety-six degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceeding	85 cents	$1-68712	$1-68712ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds	
when exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceed-	85-75 cents	$1-71766	$1-71766ing ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds...	86 [DOT] 50 cents	$1-74820	$1-74820150	over ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds.. Provided that all raw sugar, including sugar specified in this item, the produce of any British Colony or possession, shall be entitled to entry under the British Preferential tariff, when imported direct into Canada from any British country. Provided that sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty. Lime juice and fruit juices, fortified with or containing not more than twenty-five per cent of proof spirits,	87-25 cents	$1-83250	$1-83250151	per gallon	
Lime juice and fruit juices, fortified with or containing more than twenty-five per cent of proof spirits,	$2.56	$2.50	$2.50per gallon	$10.00	$10.00	$10.00153	and	
Lime juice, raw and concentrated, not refined, per	30 p.c.	30 p.c.	30 p.c..156	gallon	
Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; whisky and all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel-oil, or any substance known as potato spirit or potato oil, methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyroxylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits, absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liquers of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p.; containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit, per gallon of the strength of	Free	15 cents	15 centproof	$10.00	$10.00	$10.00156a	Rum, per gallon of the strength of proof	
Provided, as to all goods specified in items No. 156 and No. 156a when of less strength than the strength of proof, that no reduction or allowance shall be made in the measurement thereof for duty purposes, below the strength of fifteen per cent under proof. Provided also, that when the goods specified in these two items are of greater strength than the strength of proof, the measurement thereof and	$8.00	$10.00	$10.00
Tariff
Items
British
Preferential Intermediate Tariff.	Tariff.
General
Tariff.
159a
162
164
the amount of duty payable thereon shall be increased in proportion for any greater strength than the strength of proof.
Provided further, that bottles and flasks and packages of gin, rum, whisky and brandy of all kinds, and imitations thereof, shall be held to contain the following quantities (subject to the provisions for addition or deduction in respect of the degree of strength), viz.:-
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing not more than three-fourths of a gallon per dozen, as three-fourths of a gallon per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three-fourths of a gallon but nore more than one gallon per dozen, as one gallon per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one gallon but not more than one and one-gallon per dozen, as one and one-half gallon per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one and one-half gallon but not more than two gallons per dozen, as two gallons per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two gallons but not more than two and four-fifths gallons per dozen, as two and four-fifths gallons per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two and four-fifths gallons but not more than three gallons per dozen, as three gallons per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three gallons but not more than three and one-fifth gallons per dozen, as three and one-fifth gallons per dozen.
Provided further, that bottles or phials of liquors for special purposes, such as samples not for sale to the trade, may be entered for duty according to actual measurement, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue-Spirits and strong waters of any kind, mized with any ingredient or ingredients, as being or known or designated as essences, extracts, or ethereal and
spirituous fruit essences, n.o.p., per gallon	
and
Spirits and strong waters of any kind mixed with any ingredient or ingredients, as being or known or designated as anodynes, elixirs, tinctures or medicines, n.o.p., per gallon	
and
Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:-
(a) when in bottles or flasks containing not more
than four ounces each	
(5) when in bottles, flasks or other packages, containing more than four ounces each, per gallon....
and
Medicinal or medicated wines, including vermouth and ginger wine, containing not more than forty per
cent of proof spirit	
Wines of all kinds, n.o.p., including orange, lemon, strawberry, raspberry, elder and currant wines, containing twenty-six per cent or less of proof spirit, whether imported in wood or in bottles, per gallon..
and
And in addition thereto, for each degree of strength in excess of twenty-six per cent of proof spirit until the strength reaches forty per cent of proof spirit... Provided that six quart bottles, or twelve pint bottles shall be held to contain a gallon for duty purposes under this item.
Wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, containing not more than forty per cent of proof spirit, whether imported in wood or in bottles (six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles to be held to contain a gallon i, when the produce or manufacture of any British
$10.00 30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
$ 3.00 30 p.c.
$3 .00 30 p.c.
90 p.c.
$5.0) 40 p.c.
90 p.c.
$5.00 40 p.c.
80 p.c.
80 p.c.
55 cents
55 cents
3 cents
3 cents
$10.00 30 p.c.
S 3.00 30 p.c.
90 p.c.
$5. CO 40 p.c.
80 p.c.
55 cents 30 p.c.
' 3 cents
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff	Intermediate Tariff	General Tariff
	Colony or territory in the South African Customs			
165	Champagne and all other sparkling wines:- (a) in bottles containing each not more than a quart but more than a pint (old wine weasure),	$9.30	$9.30	$9.30
				30 p.c. $4.65
	(b) in bottles containing not more than a pint each, but more than one-half pint (old wine measure),	$4.65	$4.65	
				30 p.c. $2.32
	(c) in bottles containing cne-half pint each or less,	$2.32	$2.32	
				30 p.c. $1.50
	(id) in bottles containing over one quart each (old	$4.50	$4.50	
	and			30 p.c.
				
3.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May. 1921, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions, imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
4.	Resolved, that the 'Customs Tariff, 1907, be amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 12:
12a. That all goods imported into Canada which are capable of being marked,, stamped, branded or labelled, without injury, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labelled in legible English or French words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. Said marking) stamping, branding, or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit.
Provided, that all goods imported into Canada after the date of the coming in-to force of this section which do not comply with the foregoing requirements shall be subject to an additional duty of ten per centum ad valorem to be levied on the value for duty purposes and in addition such goods shall not be released from Customs possession until they have been so marked, stamped, branded or labelled under Customs supervision at the expense of the impqrter.
Provided further, that if any person shall violate any of the provisions relating to the marking, stamping, branding, or labelling of any imported goods, or shall deface, destroy, remove, alter, or obliterate any such marks, stamps, brands, or labels with intent to conceal the information given by or contained in such marks, stamps, brands, or labels, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to both fine and improisonment. The Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this section and for the enforcement thereof.
5.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
1. Resolved that it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act as amended by Chapter 6
of the Acts of 1914 (second Session) by repealing section 154 thereof and substituting therefor the following:-
154. There shall be 5mposed, levied' and collected on all spirits distilled, the following duties of excise which shall be paid to the Collector, as herein provided, that is to say:-
(a)	when the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than ninety per centum, by weight, of raw or unmalted grain, or when manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses or other saccharine matter not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(b)	when manufactured exclusively from malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or excise has been paid, or when manufactured from raw or ummalted grain, used in combination, in such proportions as the department prescribes, with malted barley taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or of excise has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars and two cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(c)	when manufactured exclusively from molasses, syrup, sugar or other saccharine matter, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, nine dollars and three cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Provided however that any person licensed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to manufacture patent and proprietary medicines and pharmaceutical preparations by the use of spirits in bond subject to The Inland Revenue Act and regulations thereunder, the following duties of excise shall be imposed, levied and collected, that is to say:-
(a)	when the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than ninety per centum, by weight, of raw or unmalted grain, or when manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses or other saccharine matter not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
[Stage Direction]
(b)	when manufactured exclusively from malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or excise has been paid, or when manufactured from raw or unmalted grain, used in combination, in such proportions as the department prescribes, with malted barley taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or of excise has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty-two cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(c)	when manufactured exclusively from molasses, syrup, sugar or other saccharine matter, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty-three cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength, and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Provided further that when such spirits testing not less than fifty per centum over proof are sold and delivered in such limited quantities as may be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to any university or scientific and research laboratory for scientific purposes only, or to any bona fide hospital, certified to be such by the Department of Public Health, for medicinal purposes only, a drawback of ninety-nine per centum of the duty paid may be granted, under regulations to be made by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
2. Resolved that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
Resolved that it is expedient to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as amended by Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1920, by striking thereout sections 19BB and 19BBB, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of excise taxes specified therein, and to provide that the following sections be substituted therefor:
19BB. (1) The following excise taxes shall be imposed, levied and collected on the articles hereinafter specified, namely:
(a)	A tax on playing cards for every fifty-four cards or fraction of fifty-four in each package,-when selling at twenty-four dollars or less per gross packages, eight cents par pack; when selling in excess of twenty-four dollars per gross packages, fifteen cents per pack;
(2)	The excise taxes as imposed by the preceding subsection one shall be payable at the time of importation or when taken out of warehouse for consumption in addition to the present duties of customs or at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer, but shall not apply on playing cards when exported, and shall be accounted for to His Majesty in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.
(3)	(a) A tax of thirty cents per gallon on
wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, containing not more than forty per cent of proof spirits;
(b)	A tax of three dollars per gallon on champagne and all other sparkling wines.
(4)	The excise taxes as imposed by the preceding subsection three' shall be payable at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer, but shall not apply to such wines when exported, and shall be accounted for to His Majesty in accordance with such regulations as shall be

prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue.	[DOT]
(5)	Every person selling or dealing in the articles upon which taxes are imposed as prescribed toy this' section may toe required by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue to take out an annual license therefor, for which license a fee not exceeding two dollars shall be paid and the penalty for neglect or refusal to obtain a license shall he a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.
(2)	That any such tax, costs or penalties may, at the option of the minister, be recovered and imposed in the Exchequer Court of Canada or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of His Majesty.
(3)	Resolved that any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
19BBB (1) That in addition, to the present duties of customs and excise there shall be imposed, levied and colected an excise tax of One and one-half per cent on sales and deliveries by Canadian manufacturers or producers, and wholesalers or jobbers, and a tax of two and one-half per cent on the duty paid value of goods imported, tout in respect of sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers the excise tax payable shall be three per cent and on goods imported by retailers or consumers the excise tax payable on the duty paid value shall he four per cent.
Provided that in respect of lumber an excise tax of three per cent shall he imposed, levied and collected on sales and deliveries by the Canadian manufacturer and further excise tax will not be payable on resale.
Provided also that the taxes specified in this section shall not apply to sales or importations of;-
Bread;-flour and oatmeal when in packages weighing not less than forty-eight pounds each; animals living; live poultry; meats and poultry, fresh ; milk including buttermilk; cream ; butter; cheese; oleomargarine, margarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter; lard, lard compound and similar substances, made from animal or vegetable stearine or oils ; eggs; vegetables, fruits, grains and seeds in their natural state; hay ; straw; hops ; nursery stock ; chicory, raw or green ; bees ; honey ; sugar ; molasses ; other farm produce sold by the individual farmer of his own production; Ice; fish and products thereof not canned or medicated; ores of metals of all kinds; fuel of all kinds; gold and silver in ingots, blocks, bars, drops, sheets or plates unmanufactured; British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin; logs and round unmanufactured timber; fence posts, railroad ties, pulp-wood, tan bark, and other articles the product of the forest when produced and sold by the individual settler or farmer; newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semi-monthly magazines and weekly literary papers unbound; materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships ; ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade; calcium carbide: electricity; gas manufactured from coal, calcium carbide or oil for illuminating or heating purposes ; materials for use solely in the manufacture of oleomargarine or any substitute for butter or lard or for the production of collolene ; artificial limbs and parts thereof; artificial eyes ; donations of clothing and hooks for charitable purposes; settlers' effects; War Veterans' badges; memorials or monuments erected in memory of soldiers who fell in the Great War; articles imported for the use of the Governor

General; articles imported for the personal or official use of Consuls General who are natives of citizens of the country they represent and who are not engaged in any other business or profession; Bibles, prayer-books, psalms and hymn-books, religious tracts, and Sunday school lesson pictures, and the Governor in Council shall have power to add to the foregoing list of articles exempted from the excise taxes on sales, as he may deem it expedient or necessary to exempt from the said excise taxes.
Provided further that the excise taxes specified in this section shall not be payable on goods exported, or on sales of goods made to the order of each individual customer by a business which sells exclusively by retail, under regulations by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue who shall be sole judge as to the classification of a business; and a drawback may be granted of ninety-nine per cent of the said taxes paid on materials used, wrought into or attached to articles exported.
(2)	That the minister may require every manufacturer, producer, wholesaler or jobber to take out an annual license for the purposes aforesaid, and may prescribe a fee therefor, not exceeding two dollars, and the penalty for neglect or refusal shall be a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.
(3)	That any such tax, costs or penalties may, at the option of the minister, be recovered and imposed in the Exchequer Court of Canada or in any other Court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of His Majesty.
(4)	That the provisions of this resolution respecting a tax on sales shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, we had anticipated that in pursuance of the announcement made some days ago the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) would have been able to deliver his Budget speech earlier in the day, and that we might then continue the debate at once, but he was kind enough to intimate to me early to-day that, for reasons which he explained, it would be more convenient to him and to the Government to bring on the speech to-night. We then agreed that in that case, after he had delivered his speech, a motion to adjourn the debate would be in order. With that understanding, I desire now to move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the debate adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-Health-salaries, $155,612.50 contingencies, $82,000.
Mr. CAHILL:: The minister promised us a few days ago a statement regarding the Department of Health.


Mr. CALDER:: I might give a very brief review of the work of the department during the year. It will probably be helpful to the committee in considering the Estimates in detail. The Department of Health was created in 1919, and under the Act then passed provision was made for transferring to jthe Department of Health many activities carried on by other departments of the Government, and shortly after the Act was passed, the necessary Orders in Council were put through for that purpose. The quarantine services as well as the work of medical examination that had been previously carried on by the Department of Immigration were transferred. Under some statute in force the Marine Department had been looking after sick mariners. It was thought advisable that that work should also be transferred to the Department of Health, and that accordingly was done. Then the administration of an Act relating to the adulteration of food was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health. There was also some statute relating to drugs, apart from the statute we were discussing the other day, the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and its administration was undertaken by the Department of Health. Then there was an Act administered, if I am not mistaken, by the Department of Inland Revenue relating to proporietory and patent medicines. That work also was in due course transferred to the Department of Health. In addition to these old services which were carried on by various departments of the Government, certain new work was undertaken. It will be remembered that when the Act creating the Health Department was before the House, a suggestion was thrown out that it should contain provision for the creation of a branch dealing with child welfare. That branch in due course was created, and is now under the management of Dr. Helen McMurchy, having been in operation for some months. The housing scheme submitted to the Government some two years ago, and finally approved by the Government, was also handed over to the Health Department.
It will be recalled that certain provision was made in the Estimates for dealing with the problem of venereal diseases, the sum of some $200,000 was placed in the Estimates a year ago, and it is proposed to continue the same sum this year, the Department of Health, co-operating with the various provincial departments of

health, with a view to suppressing those diseases as fax as possible. We also had very considerable discussion, I think, at the time the Bill went through, with regard to the advisability of establishing a research bureau in connection with the Department of Health. That has not been done. No progress has been made in that respect, not because a research bureau of the character discussed at that time was not considered advisable, but mainly because we contemplated the establishment of a general scientific bureau at Ottawa, and it was considered wise to let the whole matter rest in abeyance until such time as a decision is finally reached regarding the larger problem.
I do not propose to keep the House very long in dealing with details, but in so far as quarantine is concerned, I may say that the officer in charge of that work for many years in the past, Dr. Montizambert, was retired during the year. He had given long years of service, and, if I remember rightly, he had charge of all our quarantine stations in Canada for something like thirty or thirty-ifive years. During the year, owing to his advanced age, it was thought well that he should be retired, and that some one else should be appointed in his place. Dr. Montizambert gave very long and valuable service to the country in the work he performed during those many years. His place has been taken by Dr. Page, who was formerly our chief medical officer in the Immigration Department at Quebec, and who is now in charge both of the quarantine work and of our immigration medical inspection work. He is now stationed at Ottawa.
We have in Canada four main quarantine stations, one at St. John, one at Halifax, one at Quebec, and one at Victoria. Besides these we have a number of minor stations. Throughout the year, I understand, Dr. Page, the officer mainly responsible for the conduct of these stations, has carefully reviewed the whole situation and has made a number of improvements. Other improvements are very necessary, and that applies particularly to our stations at St. John, Halifax, and Grosse Isle, Quebec; and various sums have been placed in the Estimates for the purpose of providing facilities which are necessary in order that the work of these stations may be properly carried on so as to protect our people from infectious diseases. In addition to actually reviewing the situation at those stations and making provisions for such alterations as were necessary, the Health Department has had two of its
TMr. Calder.]
officers during the past year in Europe and in the United States studying very carefully the plans and methods followed by these countries, and, as a result, I have no doubt at all that a great many improvements will be made in our system in so far as handling these quarantine stations is concerned. Personally, I think, from my own knowledge of the situation and the work carried on during the year, and from the improvements that have already been made, and those that are in sight, I think we may quite confidently say, that there is very little danger of many of the diseases that are now rampant in Europe being introduced into Canada.
As regards the medical inspection of immigrants, I think I may truthfully say that that work is now being carried on much more satisfactorily than was the case in the old days. After the discussion we had some two years ago, when the immigration Act was being amended, and on account of the views that were very freely expressed in the House at that time, and the opinions expressed in the press as well, steps were taken to tighten up as far as possible the work that was being done in that respect, and I have no hesitation in saying that the work is now being carried on much more satisfactorily than heretofore. At any rate, I am advised th it fewer complaints reach us in this regard than in the old days.
Two of the officers of the Health Department have also visited Great Britain and Europe for the purpose of advising and helping those who are responsible for passing immigrants at the ports of embarkation. Under the British law, the Board of Trade has its medical officers at the ports of embarkation, and, in addition to that, every shipping company has its medical officers in order to make certain that immigrants that are not sound physically and mentally shall not sail from those ports. Our medical officers have been in consultation with them for some weeks at a time, advising them, as best they can, as to the course that should be followed by them in their inspection and in passing immigrants. I have no doubt whatever that as a result of the work done in that connection very many people have been prevented from coming to Canada who, had they not been rejected at the ports of embarkation, would not have been allowed to land in this country.
We have also adopted the practice during the year of appointing permanent officers for this work. Some five or seven years ago many of our medical inspectors were

merely temporary officers appointed only for short periods, and very often paid by the day. That practice has been entirely abolished and our officers are now permanent men. On the eastern coast, where we have three main ports of entry, namely, St. John, Halifax, and Quebec, in the winter time, when our ports are closed, our officers move to St. John and Halifax, and in the summer, with the great rush of people to Quebec, they locate these. There is sufficient work to keep a full staff of permanent officers engaged, and that plan has been adopted instead of having a number of temporary officers who are changed from year to year. The new plan operates to the advantage of the service generally.
With reference to the care and treatment of sick mariners, it will be remembered that a year ago the fees charged to the owners of vessels were increased, if I mistake not, from one and a half cents to two cents per ton. As a result of the year's operations it will be noted that the fees charged are just a little more than is sufficient to carry on that expenditure- there is a slight saving in that regard. There again, in that branch of our work, the staff has been re-organized. We have adopted the plan of paying our medical officers a lump sum every year for which they are required to render certain services. Heretofore the plan prevailed of paying these men fees for the amount of work which they actually did. Instead of doing so now, we give them a retainer and they are required to give whatever service is necessary in connection with this work; and I am advised that this system is working out very much more satisfactorily than the old plan. We have only some three hospitals left.' I think there were six originally but there are now only three, and it is proposed to close one of those shortly. It is in New Brunswick at a place called Douglastown. Instead of our maintaining hospitals, the plan has been devised of having our sick mariners taken care of in the ordinary hospitals in these seaports for which, of course, we pay the daily rates for the maintenance of the patients.
As regards the administration of the Adulteration of Food Act-


Mr. DUFF:: Before the minister leaves
the subject of the Sick Marineer's Fund; do you also pay for the medicines used by the doctors, or do they pay that out of their salaries? -


James Alexander Calder: I understand the amount paid the doctor covers everything that he is required to furnish in the way of medicines.
He must himself pay for what is required in the shape of medicines. We simply give him a lump sum which is to cover all his expenses in connection with work-his own service plus what medicines he must buy.


William Duff: Does the minister think
that is a fair proposition? One doctor might have only five patients in the year, and another praetioner might have one hundred and five?


James Alexander Calder: That is a detail. I would like to have my deputy here when we come to consider details of that nature. At any rate that is the plan that has been devised and, so far as I know, has worked out satisfactorily. In any event no complaint has reached me regarding it.
I made mention of the administration of the Adulteration of Food Act. Under that law Canada has been divided into twenty-five districts, and there again provision has been made for the appointment of permanent officers who will give their entire time to looking after the administration of the law. I am advised that heretofore we had a fairly large staff of part time employees which plan, I understand, has worked out more or less unsatisfactorily. It seems to me that if there is sufficient work to be done under that law it is far better to have a man permanently on the job who is familiar with the law and with its administration. That has been worked out during the past few years, and now we have a permanent staff in some twenty-five districts extending from coast to coast. In addition to that we have laboratories established at Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, these institutions existing for the purpose of analyzing the various food commodities where there is any suspicion as to their having been adulterated, and of course a staff of analysts and chemists is employed for that purpose. Last year we had a vote, for this branch of the work of the Health Department, of some $90,000. This year it has been reduced to $80,000, and I dare say, if we had the figures before us for the year, it might have been still further reduced-because I find that the total expenditure for last year down to March 28, was only some $56,000; so it would appear that we will scarcely require the full vote that is asked for this year. As I said, last year $90,000 was asked for; this year we are asking for $80,000; whereas the total expenditure down to March 28, was only some $56,000. It is quite true the books are not closed and that that amount may be

swelled to some extent. The total revenues collected from the administration of the adulteration of the Food Act and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act amounted to some $38,373.95. Speaking of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, I find that there were convictions in 309 cases during the year, and fines were levied totalling some $57,265. Of these fines levied, however, only some $16,697 were collected; in other words, a good many people upon whom fines were levied preferred the jail penalty rather than pay the fine. The amount derived from licenses under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act was $4,760. I have been given some rather interesting figures to illustrate the effect of the provisions included-I think it was last session- in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. I have only the figures for nine months, but I dare say the same figures would be true comparatively for the whole twelve months' period. I find, for example, that during the nine months up to the end of December the total quantity of cocaine imported into Canada was 5,007 ounces as against 2,967 ounces for the same nine months' period of the previous year. In the case of morphine there were 9,838 ounces imported as against 23,666 ounces the previous year; and in the case of gum opium the importations for the nine months period were 2,478 pounds as against 12,837 pounds. Those figures certainly show a very remarkable decrease in the quantities of these drugs imported into Canada for the nine months period ending December 31, last.
I do not know that I should take up the time of the committee just now in relating what ,has been done in connection with housing. I have the figures here, however, and if any member of the committee is interested I shall be very glad to give the moneys that have been allotted each province. I have a statement as to the number of houses that have been built, and as to the manner in which the accounts with the various provinces stand at the present time. If any members of the committee are interested in them. I also have statistics here from all of the provinces, I think, with the exception of one, as to the results of our co-operation with the various health departments in connection with the suppression of venereal diseases. The figures are very interesting. I have some doubt as to whether some of these figures should be given publicity to-that, however, will be a matter for the committee to decide. I have the figures here, and if hon. gentlemen are sufficiently in-
terested in them, and think they should be made public, I will have no objection to submitting them to the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: Has
the minister any figures in connection with the mariners' dues, showing the amount collected and the amount expended?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, I have those figures. I made a very brief reference to the creation of the Child Welfare Branch in the department which was created some months ago. We were very fortunate in securing the services of Dr. Helen MacMurchy. Personnally, I feel she is doing splendid work there. She has been co-operating with the various health departments, and as a result of her activities a national body has been created that is very deeply interested in this work. They had a convention last year when some 200 delegates were present, and I understand that another convention will be held this year. I have no hesitation in saying that if the work of that department is carried on for a number of years a very distinct advance will be made by all the provinces in connection with the problem of child welfare.
I have run over only very briefly the main activities of the department. I have numerous statistics before me which I think might well be presented upon the various items of the Estimates when we come to them in detail.


Mr. BELAND:: The minister has stated that the quantity of cocaine and morphine imported last year showed a great diminution on the importation of the previous year. This is of course very gratifying news. To what activity in particular does the minister attribute that decrease? Is it through a stricter surveillance? And how far has it been exercised with the medical profession, or the hospitals, or the druggists? It has come to my knowledge during the recess that, regrettable as it may be, some medical men have resorted to selling cocaine and morphine to their patients to satisfy their craving for these drugs. I should like to have some further particulars with regard to the work that has been accomplished in restricting this undesirable trade.


James Alexander Calder: I am inclined to the view that the reduction has come as a result of the change in the law and the close supervision of its administration. In the first place, all importers of these drugs must take out a license; in the second place, local manufacturers of these drugs must

also take out a license; and during the year the department has closely scrutinised the records of these licensees. In addition to that. I think that dealers in these drugs generally have come to recognize the fact that the department means business. The mounted police have been co-operating with the department to the fullest possible extent, and I think the reduction in the illicit traffic is due in very large measure to the knowledge the traffickers have that the mounted police are extremely vigilant. Many of the convictions secured during the year have been the result of the operations of the mounted police. Another factor is that on account of the changes in the law the department has been co-operating to a fuller extent with the local municipal police. In other words, more people have become interested in the proper administration of this law, and I think it is a combination of all these circumstances that has resulted in the figures which I have given to the hon. gentleman.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In so far as the regular importation of cocaine and morphine is concerned, I have no doubt that it is not a difficult matter for the department to get from the importers an exact statement of the different channels through which those drugs have been distributed and as to whether the quantity sold to hospitals, druggists or doctors is more than would be required for their lawful needs. But I understand that a large quantity of these drugs is smuggled into the country, and I doubt very much if the mounted police can accomplish very much in preventing it. However, the department is in a better position to judge than I am. It must be extremely difficult to restrict smuggling entirely.
Now, leaving this subject aside for a moment, I understood the minister to say that the Health Department was represented in the port of New York. Am I correct?


James Alexander Calder: One of our officers
visited New York.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has Canada a permanent medical adviser in the port of New York?


James Alexander Calder: No. What I stated was that a couple of our officers had visited Great Britain and the Continent and also the United States to observe the methods there employed in handling quarantine and immigration matters, in order that we might improve our methods if possible.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have in mind the case of the child of a professor of Laval University who landed in New York with her grandmother and was detained for some time without any apparent reason except that she was not accompanied by her father or her mother. The Minister of Health, who is also Minister of Immigration, will appreciate the predicament in which these two persons found themselves in the port of New York, where they were placed on a small island, I believe, and had to await the arrival of the father of the child, who was notified by wire and arrived on the scene as soon as possible. The department should see that such cases do not occur, especially when the persons concerned are provided with regular passports vised by all the required authorities.


James Alexander Calder: Were these persons held on account of disease, or was the only reason the fact that the child was not accompanied by her parent?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That was the only reason given. I assume that it is a regulation of the American Department of Immigration, but the case could be taken up and looked into. I have no objection to giving my hon. friend the name; the father of the child was Dr. Vallee, whom the minister may know. The child was, I think, with the mother of Dr. Vallee.


James Alexander Calder: We have at least two immigration officers, not medical officers, at New York. I have no doubt that if that case had been brought to their attention they would at once, if these people were coming to Canada, have advised the United States immigration authorities to pass them along. But it will be understood that on some of these boats thousands of people come in; all sorts of cases have to be dealt with, and the matter may not have been brought to the attention of our officers for some time.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My information is that the case was brought to the attention of the Canadian officer and that he undertook to release the old lady and the granddaughter but was without success for five days, and it was not until Dr. Vallee himself reached New York and showed that he was the father of the child that the child and the grandmother were released.


James Alexander Calder: I shall be glad to look into that case.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is the old marine hospital in Quebec still used by the Department of Health, and who is in charge of it?


James Alexander Calder: It has not been in use
recently, but there is a provision in the Public Works Estimates for repairing the old building, and it is to be put in use again. Dr. Nadeau, I understand, will be in charge of the hospital when it is reestablished.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In connection with the
European ports of embarkation, the minister has referred-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the discussion proceeds any further I think it is the duty of the Chairman to point out that unless the committee unanimously consents to discuss together all the items of the Department of Health, the Estimates should be considered item by item. I am not blaming the hon. member for Beauce for proceeding to deal with matters of general administration, because he is merely continuing tjie discussion, but if the discussion is continued along the same lines, it will be agreed that all items shall pass together.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Your observation, Mr. Chairman, is warranted, but I am only following the hon. minister in his general review of the work of the department. If I may proceed with the question, I would ask the minister if the department has considered the advisability of having a medical officer at the principal ports of embarkation for emigrants bound for Canada- Liverpool, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Havre. I have brought this matter to the attention of the department in years past with a view to securing on the other side some system of inspection which would reduce or almost entirely do away with the cases of deportation when the immigrants reach this side-[DOT] cases which are very sad indeed in their character. Is the medical inspection at Liverpool, for instance, carried on only by the medical advisers of the ship companies?


James Alexander Calder: We have had a couple
of officers over there during the last six months, more for the purpose of advising the local authorities-that is, the Board of Trade doctors and the shipping doctors. We discussed this matter on the Immigration Estimates; evidently the hon. member was not present at the time. No one would be more pleased than I would be if we could arrange just what the hon. member suggests. Under ordinary conditions, in order to accomplish the object to which my hon. friend refers, it would be necessary to have a staff on the other side to examine medically all persons coming to Canada and give them a certificate which would enable them to land in Canada, taking the respon-

sibility entirely off the shoulders of the transportation companies. In other words, we would have to maintain a staff on the continent sufficient to look into the cases of all persons desiring to come to Canada, not only from the standpoint of health, but from the standpoint of mentality as well. Now, it would not be sufficient to do that in respect of the people who left Liverpool for Canada, because many persons leave other ports to come to this country-Bristol, London, Southampton, Queenstown, Belfast, Glasgow, and so on. The great bulk of the people may come through certain ports, yet some come from all these other ports. Take the continent:	the
Italians, for instance, come from Genoa; the Greeks come from ports in Greece, and the same is true all the way around. If you are going to amend a law of this kind so that it will be applicable to all people, the only thing to do is to establish special machinery to handle the whole population in every country in Europe. As I explained to the committee the other day, I estimate that it would cost two or three or probably four hundred thousand dollars, simply to place at the different ports ordinary medical practitioners who could discover a contagious disease such as measles or smallpox or something of that kind. You would also have to have your mental experts. Supposing a man wants to leave Roumania or Greece for Canada and there 10 p.m. is a question as to his mental condition. Where are we to catch him?-in Roumania or Greece or at one of our ports? The same problem may come up in the case of a man in the north of Scotland. He leaves from Glasgow. Are we going to put in a special staff so as to catch such a man at that port? The same thing is true as regards all other ports throughout Europe. There is no doubt that the system suggested by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), if it were not for the enormous expense involved, is the proper system, but it would involve the expenditure of a very large 'ted to develop that system in Great Britain, sum of money. The United States attempted to develop that system in Great Britain, but after trying to operate it for some time they had simply to abandon it. We throw upon the transportation company the responsibility of deciding whether an intending immigrant ip all right from the health and mental standpoints. They have their medical officers, and we place large penalties upon the transportation companies if they make a mistake. In

addition to that, the British Board of Trade are interested in the examination of every emigrant who leaves the British Isles, and they have their medfieal officers at all British ports in order to safegard their people who wish to go to Canada and other countries. They have a system of supervision, so that you have the double check-[DOT] the Board of Trade and the medical men of the transportation companies.
Last year for a period of some six months we sent overseas two of our medical men who are thoroughly acquainted with our requirements, standards and,1 everything of that kind. They have got in touch with the medical men of the British Board of Trade and the shipping companies, both in Great Britain and on the continent, at the chief ports. As a result of their representations and work, very much of the hardship that had been occurring in the p^st has been eliminated. Instead of attempting to establish machinery overseas under which certificates will be given to people giving them the right to land. I rather think it will be better from our standpoint to extend our work there so that we shall have a supervising staff to aid these people in clearly understanding our law and its operation. As the matter stands now, we have the whole problem on the east coast of Canada centralized at the three ports of St. John, Halifax and Quebec, and we can keep at those three points a comparatively small staff of thoroughly trained men, men who work at that class of work for. months and months at a time and get very expert at it so that they can have a pretty clear idea, simply by looking at a person, whether or not he should be set aside for examination. To train a large staff to carry on that work properly and to be spread over a large part of Europe would cost a great deal of money.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have not suggested in particular that the minister and his department should undertake to inspect on the other side of the sea would-be immigrants to Canada. I only asked the minister whether he had considered the advisability of doing that. I realize the force of his argument that the expenditure would be very heavy and if cases of deportation are not numerous, I do not see the advisability of resorting to that policy at all. The minister is, perhaps, in a position to tell the committee what number of deportations' occurred during last year.


James Alexander Calder: Those figures were given when we were on the Immigration Estimates.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Leaving that aside for the moment, may I ask the minister whom the department sent abroad to inspect the different ports and confer with medical officers of the different transportation companies?


James Alexander Calder: Dr. Nadeau was in
Europe for a period of about five months. When he returned we sent over Dr. Jeffs. Dr. Jeffs has now been overseas for about three months. We have really covered a period of eight months instead of six months as I mentioned.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that Dr. Nadeau visited the principal ports of Continental Europe. I have known Dr. Nadeau for a great number of years, and no better qualified man could have been selected to make the tour, confer with medical men connected with the different ports and give them advice regarding our regulations. Why was the other doctor sent over? Was he sent over to complete this mission or was he sent on another mission?


James Alexander Calder: The department has
adopted the practice of using every endeavour to train its chief officers. Dr. Nadeau was sent across in order that he might familiarize himself with the situation in Great Britain and Europe. He spent some five months there for that purpose, and I am sure the hon. member can understand that, in addition to his giving advice, he would also learn a good deal that would be very valuable to him on this side. When Dr. Nadeau returned, he went down to New York, and it was thought well to send over one of our other doctors interested in this work. This scheme of sending our medical officers across the seas is part of the general scheme of the department of' giving our chief officers every opportunity for a thorough training in the work of the department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who has replaced Dr. Page who, I understand, has been promoted to the position formerly occupied by Dr. Montizambert?


James Alexander Calder: Dr. Nadeau of Quebec.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He is in charge of the Immigration hospital?


James Alexander Calder: He has charge of the
medical end of our work there. Dr. Page was immigration agent and medical


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
inspector at Quebec. I think Mr. O'Connor is now the agent at Quebec and Dr. Nadeau is health officer at Quebec.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Dr. Montizambert has
been a very long time with the department as a higher health officer and later, I think, as General Superintendent of Quarantine Stations in Canada. The minister stated that Dr. Montizambert had been superannuated. Was he retired under the provisions of the Civil Service Act passed last session?


James Alexander Calder: He was under the old superannuation law, and was retired under its provisions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At his own request?


James Alexander Calder: No, I could hardly say that. I think he was quite prepared to carry on.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We are all sorry to lose Dr. Montizambert's services, and our sorrow is only diminished by the fact that he has been replaced by such a distinguished medical authority as Dr. Page.


James Alexander Calder: He is a first-class officer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The very best.


Peter McGibbon: The department is now administering the Opium and Drug Act. How many convictions have been secured, and what quantity of these drugs has been seized?


James Alexander Calder: There were some 309
convictions. I have not the information before me as to the quantity of drugs seized. In the case of these 309 convictions, there were fines imposed to the amount of $57,265. These fines were not all collected, as some of those convicted preferred to stay a while in jail. The amount actually collected in fines was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $16,000.


Peter McGibbon: -What I am trying to get at is the amount of these drugs that were attempted to be brought into Canada through illegitimate channels. It is quite easy to keep track of what comes in legitimately, but I do not think we are warranted in saying there are certain reductions. unless we have some evidence to that effect. All that we know is that there has been a reduction through legitimate channels.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite correct.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to ask the minister-I brought this question up when the Bill creating the

department went through the House a couple of years ago-if there is not some way of making this Act self-sustaining. Can we not make the fees sufficiently high to pay for the administration of the Act?


James Alexander Calder: To a certain extent the Act is self-sustaining. Let me give an example. The Department of Health deals with the Act respecting the adulteration of foods and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. We also have been administering Acts respecting feeding suffs and fertilizers, proprietary and patent medicines, and marine hospitals. In the case of these services the expenditures for last year down to March 28, amounted to $128,382.77, and the revenue derived from the administration of these laws amounted to $126,934.36. That shows a deficit in so far as these services are concerned, of only $1,448. Of course, there are other services. You will find in the general vote, an item for quarantine, for example, in the neighbourhood of $250,000. You could not make that service self-sustaining. Then you have the Civil Government vote of $231,537.


Peter McGibbon: When may we expect to have a scientific branch started? Along with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) I impressed the necessity of this upon the House when the Bill was going through, and when I left the chamber in the old museum I was very much astonished by what a Cabinet minister who has since given up that rank told me. He said that t had only been advocating the passing of an Act which would simply be used for creating more positions and voting more salaries, and that the Act would be absolutely useless. It rather surprised me that a man whom we would have expected to have better judgment could make such a statement. I do think that if this department is going to have any justification for its permanent existence, we ought to branch out into the scientific line. All these other Acts have been successfully administered, perhaps just as successfully as now, by other departments, and I do think that if Canada is going to take her place among the nations of the world in a scientific sense, and if the Department of Health is going to play the part it should play, it is absolutely essential that a scientific branch should he established, with a man in charge with the proper scientific attainments and qualifications. It seems ridiculous to me to see in the Estimates an item

of $10,000 for research, and $200,000 for veneral diseases. It is almost a travesty on our intelligence to bring before Parliament items of that kind. Can the minister hold out any hope of having this department put on a real scientific basis in the near future.


James Alexander Calder: All I can state at present is that the Estimates contain a sum of $10,000 for research work. I am not in a position to state what the further policy of the Government may be in this regard. I may, however, throw this out as a hint as to what may happen. I stated at the outset, when dealing with the Estimates generally, that there is a possibility that provision may be made for a research laboratory somewhere in Canada. In my judgment it would be very foolish to establish a separate laboratory for our purposes. If we are going to have a general scientific laboratory for carrying on scientific, research and investigational work, it seems to me that whatever we require in that direction should find a place in that laboratory in order to save expense and duplication, but until that larger question of policy is determined I am not in a position to state anything further in regard to the matter.	,


Peter McGibbon: I do not
agree that that is the larger question of policy; I think it is the minor one. The question of industrial or scientific research is an entirely different matter. We have also been advocating that in this House for a good many years, and I am glad that the Government have at last passed a Bill for that purpose. As far as a home for a scientific department is concerned, it might be housed in the same building as the Department of Health, but I do not see how one could be brought under the other or even associated with it. The objects are quite different; scientific and industrial research is ah entirely different thing.


John Howard Sinclair: I did
not get the information I asked for with regard to sick mariners.


James Alexander Calder: I was just wondering
whether we were going to take up the items separately. I shall be very glad to give the figures when we come to that item.


John Howard Sinclair: I
understood that we were going to consider the items together until we got our information.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the committee have agreed to that, and that all the items are to be passed together the moment the discussion concludes.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: That is the way I understand the matter.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite agreeable to me. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), wanted to know the revenue derived from marine hospitals. The fees collected in 1919-20, the full year, amounted to $78,227.04, and the expenditure amounted to $88,886.36. For the year 1920-21, down to March 28, just prior to the close of the year,-these figures will not be absolutely accurate because the books were not closed at that time-the department had collected $79,047.25, whereas the expenditure down to that time, March 28 this year, amounted to $69,286.97. In other words, there was about $10,000 on the credit side of the ledger.


John Howard Sinclair: That is very satisfactory, but I understood that the rate was increased to twice what it was before. Is that correct?


James Alexander Calder: No, it was increased from one and a half cents to two cents.


John Howard Sinclair: The
rate has been doubled.


James Alexander Calder: No; if it were doubled, it would be three cents.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
not three cents now?


James Alexander Calder: No, two cents.


John Howard Sinclair: Then I think there should be a larger increase in the revenue. The revenue in 1919, under the old rate, was $69,243.65, according to the returns, so that there is very little increase in the revenue this year.


James Alexander Calder: I understand that the new rate only went into effect on January 1 of this year, so that there will be nine months of the last fiscal year under the old rate.


John Howard Sinclair: Do
government ships pay dues the same as other ships? We have two classes of government ships, the ordinary marine vessels that are used for lighthouse service, like the Stanley and the Lady Laurier, and ships of the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine. Do both or either of these classes of ships pay the ordinary dues?
313G


James Alexander Calder: I understand that the government ships have not been charged this rate.


John Howard Sinclair: None of them?


James Alexander Calder: No, the reason being
that in the past none of the government ships run by the Customs Department, the Inland Revenue Department, or the Marine Department, have ever paid these fees. Where their mariners have been sick they have been taken care of in the ordinary way, and the accounts for their care have been charged against the department. That is the custom that has prevailed in the past.


John Howard Sinclair: That
does not seem to be fair.


James Alexander Calder: I do not like it myself.	.


John Howard Sinclair: There
is no reason in the world why Government ships should escape taxation and the care of the mariners employed by the Government should be thrown on the other ships. But that is apparently what the Government does. I notice by the Auditor General's report that this statement is borne out, a considerable sum of money having been expended in taking care of sailors on Government ships. Apparently this expenditure is charged against the revenue collected from the ordinary mercantile ships. This seems to me to be a grievous discrimination. The Government has never taken care of sick sailors on the coast of Canada; I can make that statement without the slightest hesitation. They have neglected the duty of looking after these sick mariners, and I know this to be the case in my own constituency as well as along the coast of Nova Scotia. Every hon. gentleman in this House from that part of the Dominion knows that proper attention has never been given by the Marine Depart-n>ent to sick sailors in Eastern Canada. The way in which doctors are paid is a good illustration of the Government's policy. The doctor is given a lump sum of $400 or $500, and he is supposed to provide medicine out of that. You can understand what this means in a port where sick sailors come in requiring expensive medicine. It simply means that the sailors do not get medicine at all, for it would be impossible for the doctor to buy drugs, at present rates, to be prescribed for any number of sick sailors out of the small amount he gets as a salary. That is one of the systems carried on by the Government in the
 -
penurious way in which they have dealt with this matter. I protest against the practice of charging the care of sick sailors on Government ships against this fund, as well as against the neglect which is shown these men, the reason for which is the alleged fact that there is no money in the fund to look after them. As a matter of fact, there has been a considerable surplus in this fund for a good number of years. I remember that this matter was looked into some time ago, and there was a large sum of money-some $200,000 I believe-of a balance to the credit of the fund. Application was made in my own constituency many years ago for some accommodation for the sick sailors at the town of Canso, which is the largest fishing port in the Dominion, or at all events, on the Atlantic coast. More ships call there and more sailors visit that port than is the case with any other port in Eastern Canada; and yet there is no accommodation for sick sailors. The nearest marine hospital situated at Louisburg, which is 140 miles distant from Canso by any means of public conveyance. No steamer runs between Canso and Louisburg, and the only way of reaching the latter place from Canso would be to take the patient up to Mulgrave, some thirty miles away, and then to Sidney, another ninety miles and from thence to Louisburg or to Anti-gonish, which is also a long distance from Canso. The only thing to be done in a case like this is to provide some hospital accomodation at Canso itself for sick sailors. This question has been brought to the attention of the department many times, but nothing whatever has been done. I presume that the ships of the Mercantile Marine are treated in the same way, are they not? Do they pay?


James Alexander Calder: When the hon. member
asked his question, he referred to Government ships, and I immediately asked the officers if they paid the ordinary tonnage rate and was advised that they did not. But they had in mind, not the Canadian Merchant Marine, but the ordinary boats run by the different departments, which do not pay. The Canadian Merchant Marine boats pay the same as the others. With reference to doctors engaged at comparatively small figures running from $300 to $400, in the great majority of cases the sick seamen are sent to hospitals and the charges for medicines and supplies are included in the hospital bill.


John Howard Sinclair: But
take a place where there is no hospital?


James Alexander Calder: Where that does not prevail, the medical man himself out of the annual fee agreed upon provides whatever is required in the way of medicine. He is a party to the agreement, he expects it, that is his bargain, it is understood; so there cannot be any very great hardship in that connection. After correspondence and consultation with these men they came to an agreement as to what amount should be charged as an annual fee.


John Howard Sinclair: It is
news to me that the doctor is allowed to state the amount he will take for attending the sailors and paying for the medicine. If that was the case there would be no complaint, and we would not have cases like that at Canso where a small sum of about $500 is paid to a doctor, which amount is to include the cost of medicine. My hon. friend's statement is not really a recital of what actually does happen. The doctor is offered a small sum to attend to this duty at the port, but he is not consulted as to what medicine shall be used. If he were he would tell a very different story from that told by my hon. friend. It is a cause of complaint among the doctors all along the coast that, out of the small salary they receive, they have to furnish medicine principally to the sailors. It is an improper method in the first place and my hon. friend ought to correct it. There should be a separate account for the medicine. The medicine is one thing; the doctor's service is another thing. They should not be mixed up together in the way my hon. friend states because it operates to the neglect of the sailor; it cannot operate otherwise. Sometimes expensive medicine is required, the [DOT] salary of the doctor is often not more than $400 or $500, and it would be impossible, as every medical man knows, to give any decent treatment on a salary like that and pay for the medicine, especially as the sailor is a long time under the doctor's care. The system is wrong, and I would like my hon. friend to say now, before we get through with this discussion that he will correct it. This matter has been turned over to the Department of Health. The Marine Department is not supposed to know anything about health matters, but this department does know, it is their business, and they ought to deal with the question in a businesslike way. Pay the doctor a certain salary for looking after the sailors, and pay for whatever medicine is required out of the fund. The fund is in a healthy condition so far, and there is no reason why
we should be penurious about it. It has given a credit balance this' year, it will likely give a larger one next year. It has constantly given a credit balance, I think, and there is a large balance to the credit of the fund when you add up the results of the different years. Now, there is no reason why we should treat sailors this way. We are collecting money from the ships for the special purpose of taking care of them, and the Government is a trustee for the distribution of that money. I want to be emphatic on this question; the matter should be adjusted by the Health Department and adjusted at once.


James Alexander Calder: I am inclined to agree
with the statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The matter has now come to my attention and I can see that there is a good deal in the argument. I might state, however, that the amount that has been fixed for a fee for the doctor at these various ports has been based upon past experience covering a number of years. Well, that in itself may be all right, but I can quite conceive of a case where a doctor might have half a dozen sick mariners, with a certain class of disease, or diseases, that would require a great deal of costly medicine. I can quite conceive of that, and it seems to me that the suggestion thrown out is worthy of every consideration and should be gone into with a view of seeing whether or not we cannot work out a system along the lines which have been suggested. I can promise the hon. gentleman that I will be only too glad to do that. I will admit at the same time that I can see a great deal of force in his argument, and I hope we will be able to work out some plan along that line.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
my hon. friend also look into this question of the hospital at Canso?


James Alexander Calder: I will be only too glad
to do so.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like him to give that matter serious attention.


James Alexander Calder: I shall look into it.


John Howard Sinclair: 1
would like my hon. friend to do this specially because I know it is the policy of the Government to close up these hospitals, and it is a good policy in places where ordinary hospitals exist for treatment.


James Alexander Calder: What is the nearest hospital to Canso?


John Howard Sinclair: I was explaining to my hon. friend that there were two or three hospitals, but I suppose the hospital in Antigonish would be the nearest.


James Alexander Calder: About how many miles distant would that be?


John Howard Sinclair: About
a hundred. It is rather difficult to remove the patient, who is on a boat, to the train and convey him to the hospital at either Antigonish, Louisburg, or Halifax; there are three hospitals to which patients from Canso can be sent. Men have lost their lives at Canso in recent years because they could get no proper treatment there. In some cases it was impossible to remove them to'a hospital, they had to be treated in a kitchen or some place where people would take them in, as there is no hospital of any kind there. The consequence has been that sailors have not had the proper treatment at that place. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Marine Department constantly for years back, and promises have been made but nothing has ever been done. I would submit that the proper way to deal with this question would be to have a cottage hospital at Canso, and for the department to agree to pay a substantial sum for the purpose of maintaining it, throwing the rest of the burden upon the town. There is no reason why something should not be done by the town as well as by the Government provided the hospital can be made to serve the sick of the town as well as the sailors. I think an arrangement could be made by which the local people would bear part of the burden, if the Government would give a substantial amount each year towards maintaining a small hospital there to look after these sick mariners.


James Alexander Calder: I shall be very glad to look into it.


Alexander William Chisholm: My hon. friend from Guysborough has been very moderate in his figures. The fact of the matter is that these medical men are often only paid $300, and the medical man in his own town of Canso was only paid $468.75 for fifteen months' work.


James Alexander Calder: He will get $550 next year.


Alexander William Chisholm: Well, if he got $550, as my hon. friend has said, he would expend that in drugs if he gave proper treatment to the patients. The same condition

obtains all along the coast. My hon. friend has made a strong plea for a hospital at Canso. He has made out a very strong case, I admit, but the same condition obtains along other sea-coasts. Take the coast of Inverness county. There you find one hundred miles of sea-coast where a large percentage of the population devote their entire time in the summer season to fishing and sailing. These men go outside the province, and therefore are entitled to participate in the Sick Mariners' Fund. There is not a hospital within a hundred and fifty miles, there is no hospital in the county, I may say, but an effort is now being put forth to build a hospital there. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he could adopt some policy or other by which the department would give reasonable assistance to the building of that hospital. The department would then have, so to speak, a claim on that hospital for the treatment of the sick mariners. I would urge him to take that matter into consideration. As to the salary paid to the doctors, the policy now adopted is simply unique. I can explain it because those concerned are doctors, and as usual they give their services for nothing. I could tell my hon. friend the number of patients that have been treated in Cheticamp, but before doing that I would ask the minister one question: Do these men send in any report to the department as to the work they do, or as to the number of patients they treat? I see my hon. friend has the data there. If I were to tell the minister the number of patients that have been attended to at Cheticamp and Grand Etang alone, he would be surprised and would wonder how the doctors could have given those patients" proper attendance and medicines on the small amount of money that is allotted. So really I am afraid the doctors accept these positions simply because their work is humanitarian. The minister's explanation a moment ago is not sufficient. It is not fair to say that because these men have been generous enough to give their work for nothing, merely getting sufficient from the Government to pay for the drugs they prescribe, that the present inadequate remuneration should be continued. It is not encouraging. These men, I suppose, would give much better service if it were shown that the country appreciated their work, and the only practical way of showing that appreciation is by the Government increasing the salaries, and that is a most reasonable request. I think the department should

come to one conclusion, and that is to pay these men something reasonable or tell them, "We do not want your services."


James Alexander Calder: Probably it I had before me a statement of the number of patients each officer treated in the year I would be able to give some justification for the method that has been followed. But I quite realize the force of the argument presented by the hon. gentleman. It is quite possible that a doctor might spend all his remuneration on drugs if he is doing the right thing by his patients. I shall be quite prepared to go into the whole subject sympathetically with a view to trying to meet the arguments that have been advanced.


William Duff: I am very glad indeed that . my question has brought forth this discussion, because the subject is a very important one and affects certain officials of his department in the maritime provinces. It was brought to my attention some years ago that the physician who was looking after the marine hospital in my home town was not receiving very much for his services. I think if the minister will look over his statistics he will find that more patients are treated in the marine hospital at Lunenburg than in any other hispital on the Atlantic coast. This man, although to-day getting $500, which includes the medicines he has to purchase for the sick mariners he attends, only two years ago was getting but $300.


James Alexander Calder: $600 this year.


William Duff: But he got only $500 last
year.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


William Duff: He is a very worthy
physician and gives excellent care and attention to his patients. I feel confident that if the minister will look into the matter he will come to one conclusion, that the payments for salary and medicine should be separate. During the war when medicine was very expensive this doctor informed me that it took practically all his salary to pay for the medicines he supplied. The hospital is about two miles from the town and he has to drive out there three or four times a day to look after the patients as well as to go aboard the ships and examine the sick mariners before they are taken to the hospital. The position is no sinecure and the doctor should be paid a good fair salary.
I agree with what the hon. member for Guysborough has said in regard to the
Canso hospital. Vessels from my county call at Canso perhaps more than at any other port in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. It is a port of call for these vessels when going either to the Grand Banks, the banks off Nova Scotia coast, or up into the gulf of St. Lawrence. I have seen in the port of Canso 100 sail of vessels carrying crews of from fifteen to twenty men. There is no hospital there at the present time, and one should be established at the earliest possible moment, for the reason that sick mariners landed at Canso to-day have in a great many cases first of all to be taken from their ship to another ship which runs from Canso to Mulgrave and then transferred to the train for Halifax. I have known of several cases where sick men landed from ships belonging to my own county have died on the way to Halifax, and in other cases their condition has been so imperilled that their lives were despaired of for a long time. This condition of affairs should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
Another matter which should be attended to is the treatment of sick mariners who are landed at Newfoundland ports. As the minister is well aware, 150 sail of vessels carrying some 3,000 men leave the county of Lunenburg every June on what is known as the summer fishing trip and proceed to the Grand Banks, about 100 miles east of Cape Race. While on the banks they call at Cape Broyle, St. Johns, Carbonear, Burin and other Newfoundland ports and land any sick men, but under the Act there is no provision for looking after them when tjhey are sent home to Nova Scotia. That is to say, they are not allowed to enter their home hospital for the simple reason that they were taken sick outside the province, and consequently the owner of the vessel has to pay for the men's passage home and then the men themselves or their employers have to pay for their medical attendance and hospital bills. I think the minister will agree with me that the ' department ought to pay these expenses, or allow the men to enter hospital immediately on their return to their home port. The present situation is very unfair in view of the fact that these ship owners pay their fees and are getting no benefit therefrom. I trust the minister will look into the matter and issue orders that under these circumstances the men shall be properly looked after by the Health Department.


James Alexander Calder: I shall be very glad to look into that question as well. In the

case of these fishing vessels, if a man is seriously ill and landed in Newfoundland, is any provision made for caring for him there?


William Duff: None whatever; the owners of the vessel have to pay all the bills.


James Alexander Calder: And if a man is capable of being moved he is taken back to Nova Scotia and the owner of the vessel must pay his fare and all expenses until such time as he is placed by the department in some hospital.


William Duff: No, the man comes home; he has to pay his own doctor's bills and get his own medicine, or the cost is met by the owners of the vessel. The department will take no responsibility and will not pay the bills.


James Alexander Calder: I shall be very glad tc look into it.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like the minister also to look after the Minister of Marine and see that he pays his sick mariners' bills as well as other people.


James Alexander Calder: Is my hon. friend referring to the Canadian Merchant Marine?


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to the ordinary vessels in the Government service such as the Laurier and the Stanley and the Montcalm and a number of others, all with large crews. The care of these men, when ill, is all charged up against sick mariners' dues, and nothing is paid into the fund by these, Government vessels. I find, however, in the Auditor General's report that expenditure is charged up against this fund.


James Alexander Calder: It is recouped by the department. In the first instance it is charged up against the fund but the accounts are finally squared by calling upon the department to reimburse the amount.


John Howard Sinclair: Well, the expenditure is here, making up the amount that my hon. friend said he had spent during the year. The vessels are the Aranmore, Druid, Estevan, Lady Laurier, Laurentian, Light Ship 15, Montcalm, Stanley, Tug Lisgar, Patrol Boat Bethelama, Patrol Boat F, Lillooet and Madras. These boats are mentioned in the Auditor General's report and expenditures made in connection with them are all apparently added into the expenditure that my hon. friend has mentioned.


James Alexander Calder: My hon. friend will find a corresponding amount on the revenue side.


John Howard Sinclair: I submit I am entitled to an explanation from my hon. friend. I have already understood him to say that no money was collected from the sailors on these Government vessels. Now, here is money expended from the fund, and that is what I want explained.


James Alexander Calder: As I have already stated, if there is a charge of this kind for taking care of sick mariners on these vessels the charge is first made against this fund and afterwards the amount which is paid is reimbursed by the department owning or operating the vessels.


John Howard Sinclair: Why'
is that not shown in the Auditor General's report?


James Alexander Calder: It will be found on the revenue side.


William Duff: When my hon. friend looks into the matter which I mentioned with regard to sick seamen, will he advise me when he has the information, because in a month's time the vessels will be leaving for Newfoundland, and I would like to be able to advise the captains as to the position they will be in.


James Alexander Calder: I shall be very glad to do that.


Alexander William Chisholm: I have on several occasions directed the attention of my hon. friend's department and of the Marine Department to a most peculiar condition which exists: a vessel sailing between ports in Nova Scotia cannot participate in the sick mariners' fund, but if that vessel goes to Magdalen Islands or any place outside the province, she may participate in the fund. That has always struck me as a most extraordinary condition.


James Alexander Calder: The law would have to be amended to change that.


Alexander William Chisholm: That is what I have been protesting against all along. For the last fourteen years I have been bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister of Marine, because it does pot appeal to me as being reasonable.


James Alexander Calder: It does not strike me as reasonable.


Alexander William Chisholm: Will the minister
give me the promise that he will look into the matter and that he will bring do-'*-*-

legislation next year removing that absurdity?


James Alexander Calder: I will not promise to
bring down legislation, but offhand it strikes me as a very peculiar arrangement. You have the condition where a boat which makes a small trip of ten miles outside the province-say, to an adjoining province-comes under the operation of the law, whereas, if the trip is, say, 400 miles around the coast of the province, the law does not operate. It seems to me that there must be some history in connection with this law when it has stood for fourteen years notwithstanding frequent protest by hon. members. I shall certainly . look into the matter and see what the explanation of it is.


Alexander William Chisholm: If there is any history I have never been able to learn it; I never could get any explanation from the minister or from the officers of the department.


William Duff: I can give the minister
another thought with regard to the way this matter works out. A vessel leaving a port in Nova Scotia to proceed to another port in Nova Scotia to load for a foreign port does not come under the operation of the Act. For instance, two years ago, during the influenza epidemic a number of vessels were chartered in Nova Scotia to go to North Sydney and load coal for St. John's, Newfoundland, and then to proceed to Barbados or Europe. When they arrived at North Sydney the crews took sick. These vesesls had paid sick mariners' dues but it was found under the Act that the crews could not be received in the hospital and that the Marine Department, under whose charge the sick mariners' dues were at the time, would take no responsibility. The result was that although, as I say, the vessels had paid their sick mariners' dues, the owners of the ships-or the sailors themselves, whether they went home or were under the doctor's care in North Sydney-were compelled to pay their own expenses. I tried to get the Minister of Marine to change the law a year ago but nothing has been done. I certainly think that the crews of vessels which have to proceed to a local port to take cargo to a foreign port should, in case of illness at the port where the vessel is loading, be treated in the same manner as if tie illness had taken place in other than a local port.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a good deal of misrepresentation on the part of dealers and manufacturers with regard to the supplying of coffee to the consuming public. There are offered for sale in tins different brands of coffee, all more or less represented as the pure article and as more delicious than the coffee you would obtain if you ground the beans yourself. Now, is the department taking any action in this regard? I know of some ground coffee retailing at 70 or 75 cents a pound in which there is not more than 25 per cent of real coffee the remainder being made up of peas, chestnuts, acorns, tree leaves and so on. It is one of the greatest exploitations of the public by unscrupulous dealers. Will the department not take the matter in hand, gather samples of the different brands of coffee that are offered for sale in tins, analyse them and put through regulations, or, if the department has no authority, have legislation passed to compel those manufacturers to specify clearly on the tins: "This contains 20 per cent of coffee only and no more"? The public is under the impression that it is getting the pure article, or at least 75 per cent coffee and, say 25 per cent chicory. A mixture like that is a good one and a very agreeable beverage, but will you find a single one of those mixtures containing more than, say 30 per cent of coffee? I do not believe you will. The department seem to be absolutely heedless of this shameful exploitation of the consuming public. I am a drinker of coffee, and I always ask myself why the department does not take up this question. My answer is that the officials are Englishmen who are used to tea, and they do not care about the quality of the coffee. But try to make an old English lady drink adulterated tea, a tea that is only 20 per cent pure, and you will hear a storm brewing somewhere.


Samuel William Jacobs: "A tempest in a teapot."


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will be "a tempest in a teapot" this time. As regards coffee, which is a wholesome stimulant, which is an article that you will find on every breakfast table in Quebec and very much now throughout the English provinces, why should we not be supplied with the pure article or, at least, know what we are getting? We do not know. This commodity is being sold at a fancy price without the public having any possibility of knowing whether the product is adulterated or not.
To pass from coffee to maple products, according to the existing law you are sup-

posed to get only the pure article when you buy maple sugar, or maple syrup especially. I make the statement without any fear of successful contradiction that the market is flooded with adulterated maple syrup. Unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers now avail themselves of the general impression that prevails that when you see maple syrup on a tin, it must be and is pure; but in the majority of cases it is not the pure article; it is a mixture, and the public should know that it is a mixture and the exact quantity of pure maple syrup which the article contains should be stated. I insist upon the department collecting samples, not only of maple syrup, but especially of ground coffee offered for sale in tins and letting the public know what they contain. These articles will then sell at the price at which they should be sold, and that is a few cents a pound and no more.


James Alexander Calder: I am personally glad the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) has brought these matters to our attention. Canada, as regards the Adulteration of Foods Act, is now divided, as I stated at the outset, into five districts. During the year we have adopted the policy of having permanent officials in charge of the work in each of those districts. I find, for example, that in Montreal we have four officers, one of whom is on part time. There are a few part-time officers still left. We throw the administration of the law upon these permanent officers; it is their duty, under the law and under instructions from the department, to endeavour, in every way possible, to chase up people who deal in these adulterated food products.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid the officers are too lenient as regards coffee especially.


James Alexander Calder: I am very glad the hon.
gentleman has called our attention to the matter because it will be my business to take it up with the department as regards these two products, at least; that is maple products and coffee. The hon. gentleman rather frightens me because I use daily one of these coffees put up in a tin can.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister is drinking peas all right.


James Alexander Calder: I had better have it
analysed just for the purpose of knowing what I am drinking daily because there may be but a small proportion of pure coffee in the article. There is no doubt that if either of these conditions prevail, if the market is

being flooded with large quantities of coffee that is not coffee at all or that contains only a small proportion of pure coffee, we and the public should know that. If we have a law that provides for the sale of pure maple products, and if that law is not being lived up to, we should follow the matter up, and see that the law is carried out.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Have all the provinces
availed themselves of the amount that was voted last year for combatting venereal
diseases?


James Alexander Calder: All of the provinces,
with the exception of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick would have been entitled to $7,517 and Prince Edward Island to $1,915. That would be the total amount to which they would be entitled out of $200,000, and they have not availed themselves of the grant.	.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The remaining provinces have taken the whole of the amounts to which they are entitled?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, but unless quite
recently, they have not been paid the full amounts to which they are entitled. Generally speaking-I am speaking broadly, there may be one or two exceptions-all the provinces have expended far more than the grants paid to them. For example, I find that Manitoba has a grant from us of $6,305 and, according to the last figures available, she spent on this work $30,201.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is that all that was allotted to Manitoba?


James Alexander Calder: , $12,611 would be the total grant for the year. I find that Saskatchewan was entitled to $15,361 and the last figure that we have available indicates that Saskatchewan, in dealing with the problem, spent $53,571. Thus most of the provinces are spending far in excess of the grants which they are paid.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are earning the
subsidy all right?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to assist the Canadian Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, $10,000.
Alexander William Chisholm: Will the minister
explain this item?


James Alexander Calder: This is an old grant
which has been carried on from year to year. I think it was first started in the

year 1902 when it began with the grant of $1,000, and it was gradually increased to $5,000. In 1910, the amount became $10,000, and $10,000 has been paid annually since then. This Association was formed some years ago and it is still
11 p.m. being carried on under Dr.
Porter, who is the secretary. It has interested itself during all these years in the care and treatment of tuberculous patients. I think it may be said that, as a result of the activities of this organization, there has been established throughout Canada from coast to coast a series of sanatoria that have done a splendid work in caring for this class of patients. From my general knowledge of the situation I would say that their work is not yet through. It is now very largely of an educative nature, and I think it might very profitably continue for a while at any rate.


Samuel William Jacobs: What can you do with $10,000? That is nothing.


James Alexander Calder: I presume they get other funds as well.:


Henri Sévérin Béland: The association gets
very large subscriptions from the public. This grant has been made for a number of years, and I think very properly. I have been connected with the activities of the association all over Canada, and I think the grant is a very small one. The association is supported largely by the public, and their work is commended in all respects. Dr. Porter is the secretary. He travels a good deal and any one who has come in contact with him and heard his lectures will agree that they are very, very instructive and useful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant towards defraying the expenses of the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, $10,000.
James Alexander Calder: This grant was first paid in the year 1919-20. This organization was formed for the purpose of investigating the mental condition of at least some of our people-those found in asylums and jails and other institutions of that character. Dr. Martin, of Montreal, is president, and the executive consists of Drs. Clarke, Mundie, and Hincks. I had the privilege two years ago of meeting a committee representing these gentlemen and discussing their work with them. I got a good many of their reports at that time, and went through them, and in my judgment the association is carrying on a very valuable work. They have assisted the provinces very materially. They have made a survey of the institutions in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, and I know they have had an invitation to do so in Saskatchewan, but I do not know whether they have yet visited that province. Their survey was undertaken mainly with the object in view of advising these provinces as to the treatment of mental defectives. I remember meeting one of the doctors from Quebec, Dr. Desloges, who is Superintendent of Health for that province. He was very pleased with the work this association had done in that province and with the assistance he had received. It is proposed that this grant should be continued this year. Whether or not it should be . continued after that, will be a matter to be decided in the future. I have no hesitation in saying that these gentlemen have done very valuable work. When the association started, they collected $50,000 by private subscription, and it was only after collecting that amount that they came to us because their Budget covered a very much larger sum. They came to us for a grant of some $10,000. I presume that within the last two years they have raised large amounts by private subscriptions. In any event, I think they are doing a very valuable work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill 118, to amend the Bankruptcy Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, on Tuesday, May 3, all of its clauses had been read and considered; a majority of them had been adopted, but clauses 11, 12, 40, 41, 42 and 43 had been allowed to stand. Mr. Guthrie had also proposed to amend clause 11 by inserting after the word "Act" in line 51, on page 4 of the Bill, the following words: "for the purposes of such meeting," but this amendment had not been adopted.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the amendment has now been practically agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12, agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Guthrie the committee by unanimous consent returned to
[Stage Direction]
the consideration of clause 8-receiving order or assignment to be filed:
Hugh Guthrie: I move to strike out clause 8 and substitute therefor the following :
The Act is amended by inserting immediately after section ten, the following:-
Every authorized trustee to whom an assignment is made under section nine of this Act Shad] within four days of such assignment fyle, in the Court having jurisdiction in the locality of the debtor, the said assignment, and should another authorized trustee be subsequently appointed in his stead such other trustee shall within four days of his appointment give notice thereof to the said court.
I am taking this clause from the Bill now before the House introduced by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs).
Section as amended agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: I move to insert, immediately after section 8, as section 8 (a) the following:
Section 5 is amended by adding as sub-section (2) the following: (2) the said interim receiver may, under the direction of the court, summarily dispose of any perishable goods and carry on the business of the debtor for all conservatory purposes.


Samuel William Jacobs: That clause is suggested by Mr. Justice Panneton, judge of the Superior Court of Quebec.


Mr. MORPHY:: There is no definition of the word "conservatory" in the clause. Is it left to the judgment of the judge?


Hugh Guthrie: It only applies to perishable goods.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not know the
word "perishable" was in the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to insert as
clause 8 (b) the following:
Paragraph (to) of sub-section 1 of section 11 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "and except also the rights of a secured creditor under section six of this Act."
_ This is suggested by the same learned judge of the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend section 40 by replacing in lines 10 and 11, the word "one" by the word "three."


Samuel William Jacobs: That is to say, under the new law the landlord will be entitled to six months' rent, three months past due, and three months accelerative?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to add to the Bill, as clauses 52 and 53 thereof, the following:
52.	The French version of The Bankruptcy Act, chapter thirty-six of the statutes of 1919, is hereby amended by striking out the words "tenir maison" in the last line of paragraph (d) of section three thereof, and substitutisg therefor the words "se renfermer dans sa maison."
53.	Section eleven of the said French version of the said Act is further amended by striking out'the word "meubles" and replacing it by the word "rgels" in the eighteenth and twenty-third lines of subsection one, in the eighth line of subsection eight, in the fifth line of subsection nine and in the seventh line of subsection eleven.


Mr. CANNON:: Would the hon. member who suggested that amendment please explain it?


Samuel William Jacobs: When I introduced the Bill originally, I explained that the French version is not quite in accordance with the law as it was intended to be placed on the statute book. The words "tenir maison" are in the statute instead of the words "se renfermer dans sa maison." That is, in the section itself one of the acts of bankruptcy which the insolvent can commit is "keeping house," and the party who translated the expression into French, instead of saying "se renfermer dans sa maison" translated it literally and said "tenir maison," which means that the insolvent keeps house or is a housekeeper, which is not an act of bankruptcy. The amendment is purely for the purpose of bringing both versions into harmony. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Sections agreed to.	.
Samuel William Jacobs: Before the Bill is reported, I would draw to the attention of the Acting Solicitor General the question of the remuneration of the trustee and of the solicitor. Section 40 of the Act deals with the remuneration of the trustee, and another section, which I have not before me, provides for the remuneration of the solicitor of the estate. The law says that the trustee is entitled to a remuneration of 5 per cent. Section 3 of section 40 provides that the remuneration of the trustee shall not, under any circumstances, exceed 5 per cent of the cash receipts. Subsequently, when the general rules under the Bankruptcy Act were passed, a table of fees was provided, under which the trustee is entitled to various fees for different services which he renders while managing the estate. The trustees in bankruptcy in the province of Quebec,-I do not know

what they do in the other provinces-not only credit themselves with five per cent remuneration, but also with these fees, and in many cases the trustee walks off with the entire estate. Now this law was passed for the purpose of keeping down costs and seeing that the creditors get something out of the estate, but the creditors now find they are in a very much worse position than they were before this Act was passed. I should- like to know from the Acting Solicitor General whether it was intended that these trustees should receive the remuneration provided for in section 40 and also the fees referred to in the general rules? Whatever I have said also applies to the solicitor's themselves. If it is a fact that both the solicitors and the trustees are entitled to the five per cent each, plus these fees as provided under the general rules, we would like to know forthwith because, as I said before, the Act will not function very long if this is allowed to remain in force.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought, Mr. Chairman, that the Act was very clear and definite upon the question of costs and the question of fees. The whole remuneration of the trustees is dealt with under section 40, and subsection 3 of section 40 is very specific. It says:
The remuneration of the trustee for all services shall not under any circumstances exceed five per cent of the cash receipts.
That is an absolute limitation, and that is for all the services that he performs. But in any event his fees are again limited to such an amount as the creditors shall see fit to vote to him. He is not entitled to exceed that limit or to collect another bill of costs or fees as provided by the tariff contained in the general rules. I think the tariff in the general rules was provided for the purpose of fixing the fees of solicitors and attorneys, but in any case the fees of solicitors and attorneys shall not exceed the amount specified in section 67 of the Act.	.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not even with the consent of the creditors?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the debtor would be the sufferer then. Section 67 is pretty definite. It provides:
All attorneys, solicitors and counsel acting for the trustee or for the estate of a debtor in respect of proceedings under this Act, shall be paid out of the assets of such estate their reasonable costs and fees as fixed in a tariff provided by General Rules ;-
We have the tariff. It goes on to say:
but, except as hereinafter provided, the aggregate amount of such oosts and fees so payable out of the assets of estates whereof the gross proceeds exceed five thousand dollars shall not exceed five "per centum of such gross proceeds.
That is in estates over five thousand. Then as to smaller estates there is this provision:	[DOT]
This provision shall not disentitle such attorneys, solicitors and counsel to any costs or fees which may be awarded against or be payable by persons other than the trustee or the estate of the debtor, and notwithstanding anything in this Act- contained, in estates whereof the gross proceeds do not exceed five thousand dollars, the costs or fees payable may, by unanimous vote of the inspectors, be increased to any amount not to exceed ten per centum of the gross proceeds of such estate. Such tariff shall direct by whom and in what manner such costs and fees are to be collected and accounted for and to what account they shall be paid.
I think it is quite clear under that section that in estates where the amount realized is over $5,000, solicitors or attorneys shall be paid according to the tariff, but the whole of their costs shall not exceed five per centum. In smaller estates under $5,000, if the inspectors of the estate unanimously agree, then these fees may be up to ten per cent of the amount of the estate, but they are not entitled to their commission and also their bill of costs. I have been told that in some parts of Canada a practice has grown up that a solicitor gets his commission and likewise a bill of costs. All I can say is it is contrary to the spirit and letter of the law and such a custom should not be allowed to prevail.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the Secretary of
State any disciplinary power over the trustee and solicitor?


Hugh Guthrie: He is deliberately
breaking the law.


Samuel William Jacobs: I invite my hon. friend's attention to page 83 of the rules of practice, the general rules, in which an elaborate system of counsel fees is published. I see that they run up from $10 in some cases to $50 in others. Then in section 88, on page 84 I find this:
Solicitors fees on collection of account claims, collected after notice on demand and owing as a whole or in instalments, on the first $300 or less, fifteen per cent; on the excess over $300 up to $1,000, eight per cent; on over $1,000, four per cent; Minimum charge $5.
Is that also included in the five per cent which the solicitor is entitled to receive?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that
everything collected, no matter what the bill of costs is, must not exceed the percentage set out in scetion 67 of. the Act. Now I realize that these rules do not in

all respects conform to what I consider to be the meaning of the Act, and I think the rules, in the near future, will have to he re-drafted. There are a number of inconsistencies between the rules and various sections of the Act. I think when they are re-drafted care should be taken to lay down expressly in the rules that the solicitors or attorneys shall not in any case accept more than the percentages set out in 67.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Before the section is
settled, may I point out that nothing is said about disbursements, and I can imagine a case where the disbursements in a small estate might, for some unaccountable reason, run high.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a provision for the disbursements of a trustee in another section af the Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it not be a good
idea for the Secretary of State to circularize the trustees who have been appointed, and of whom he has a list, drawing their attention to the fact that in some cases the law is being contravened, and that they must adhere strictly to the letter of the law in the future.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I think something of the kind should be done.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill^ reported, and amendments read a second time and concurred in.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, May 10, 1921.